"What got translated got translated into the word of God"

[_Shulem]

All I'm saying is what got translated got translated into the word of God the vehicle for that I do not understand and don't claim to know and know no Egyptian.

QUESTION: Specifically, what is elder Holland referring to in "what got translated"?

ANSWER: The Book of Abraham in its entirety which was first published in the Times and Seasons and titled:

1. "TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS"
2. "A Translation of some ancient Records"

QUESTION: Other than the title introduction given by Joseph Smith is there another specific example in the Book of Abraham for "what got translated"?

ANSWER: Yes:

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

QUESTION: What "translation" is referenced above?

ANSWER: EXPLANATIONS for Figures 1-21. For example:

Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

QUESTION: What are in the writings of Fig. 8 that cannot be revealed to the world?

ANSWER: It's an Egyptian spell that says: "Lo, the soul of Osiris Shoshenq will live" and it's transliterated as: ti anx bA Wsir SAs(nq)

QUESTION: What does this have to do with Joseph Smith's temple?

ANSWER: Absolutely nothing. The Mormon temple ceremony is not represented in any way within the register of Fig. 8.

QUESTION: How did the Explanation for Fig. 8 get translated into the word of God?

ANSWER: It didn't. The Explanation given for Fig. 8 is not the word of God and has nothing to do with Smith's temple. It is however a pagen spell of a faithful Egyptian and is attributed to his god, Osiris.

QUESTION: How then does the Church justify its canonized statement?

ANSWER: It doesn't. The Church has never commented on this error. The Church avoids it and refuses to discuss it. Nevertheless, the Church continues to print this funerary spell and attributes it to its own temple ceremony.

[_Themis]

QUESTION: Specifically, what is elder Holland referring to in "what got translated"?

Nothing. His statement is meant to avoid answering good questions about Joseph's claims with the Book of Abraham. I think a part of him knows he is being dishonest. He knows enough to know what Joseph claimed he was doing and that the papyri does not translate into what Joseph claimed. I think the catalyst theory will eventually become the church standard here and with the Book of Mormon. His answer fits it perfectly. Truth is always secondary to believing what the church leaders tell you.

[Guest]

Nothing. His statement is meant to avoid answering good questions about Joseph's claims with the Book of Abraham.

The questions posed by BBC News were quite good. Elder Holland's response was to ignore the whole thing by stating he knows no Egyptian. But that in itself is a lie. Elder Holland knows a little Egyptian and has read apologetic articles to that effect. When he says he knows no Egyptian he is in reality, lying. He's supposed to be an educated man and from a fine university. Can anyone doubt he's not familiar with Hugh Nibleys works? A lot of Egyptian language is mentioned in those works and elder Holland knows BYU stuff. Right?

I think a part of him knows he is being dishonest. He knows enough to know what Joseph claimed he was doing and that the papyri does not translate into what Joseph claimed.

Holland knows that he knows some Egyptian. He knows about the basic arguments of the Book of Abraham controversy as detailed through Hugh Nibley and others. Knowing those arguments means one also knows a little Egyptian. Therefore, elder Holland is a liar.

Interestingly enough, elder Holland doesn't seem to equate Joseph Smith's own Egyptian terms with Egyptian, for example:

1. which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.
2. a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand
3. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh

I don't blame elder Holland for not mentioning those above terms during his BBC interview. He would have made a fool out of himself just like Joseph Smith made a fool of himself in making that stuff up.

[_Philo Sofee]

Once again, the sharp eye of Shulem cuts right to the chase, the fundamental dishonesty of church leaders when it comes to dealing with Joseph Smith's scriptures. Excellent points both of you!

[_Shulem]

Elder Holland dodged a main point and answered with a nonanswer in failing to side with Joseph Smith who claimed to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs into the English language.

what got translated got translated

or

What got interpreted got interpreted

or

What got expressed got expressed

or

What got changed got changed

or

What got converted got converted

or

What got transcribed got transcribed

or

What got transliterated got transliterated

IT'S NO ANSWER!

[Guest]

When the Book of Abraham was published in Nauvoo in 1842 the Kirtland temple was the only temple in existence and the only temple ever completed during Smith's lifetime.



There is nothing in Joseph Smith's translation from the Egyptian hieroglyphs contained in the register of Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 8 that resembles anything I know about the Kirtland temple.

Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has yet to show any connection between the Egyptian writing of Fascimile No. 2 and the Kirtland temple. To this day the church has never said anything about it.

Why is that?

[_Shulem]

Plans for the Kirtland House of the Lord. On the other side are pasted ancient Egpytian Papyri Fragments, part of the collection Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham

Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Again, I ask: What specifically in Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 8 is contained in the Kirtland Temple?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

“... but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.”

What does that word salad even mean?

- Doc

[_Shulem]

“... but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.”

What does that word salad even mean?

- Doc

Even a salad consists of various known ingredients.

What if anything in Fig. 8 is contained in the Kirtland Temple? I can't think of anything. Can the Church think of something?

[_Dr Moore]

The catalyst theory... ugh.

To hold water, Joseph must be portrayed as an inspired fool.

Would Joseph NOT excommunicate any one of us for claiming that?

Of course, this serves the remaining narrative just fine. A foolish uneducated boy is far better than a brilliant storyteller.