Jeffrey R Holland wrote:
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.
Q & A:
Q: Specifically, what is elder Holland referring to in "what got translated"?
A: The Book of Abraham which was first published in the Times and Seasons and titled:
- "TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS"
- "A Translation of some ancient Records"
Q:What "translation" is referenced above?A FACSIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM NO. 2 wrote: The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.
A: EXPLANATIONS for Figures 1-21. For example:
Q: What are in the writings of Fig. 8 that cannot be revealed to the world?EXPLANATION Fig. 8. wrote:Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.
A: 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)
Q: What does this have to do with Joseph Smith's temple?
A: Absolutely nothing. The Mormon temple ceremony is not represented in any way within the register of Fig. 8.
Q: How did the Explanation for Fig. 8 get translated into the word of God?
A: 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's a pagan spell attributed to the god, Osiris.
Q: How then does the Church justify its canonized statement?
A: It doesn't. The Church has never commented on this error. Church leaders avoid it and refuses to discuss it. Nevertheless, the Church continues to print the hieroglyphic spell and attribute it to the Mormon temple ceremony.
Themis » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:37 am wrote: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.Shulem wrote:QUESTION: Specifically, what is elder Holland referring to in "what got translated"?
Shulem » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:31 pm wrote: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?
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.
I should point out, elder Holland won't be quick to equate Smith's 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 silly 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 » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:39 pm wrote: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!
Elder Holland dodged the main point and answered with a nonanswer in failing to side with Smith who claimed to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs into the English language.
orJeffrey R Holland wrote:what got translated got translated
What got interpreted got interpreted
What got expressed got expressed
What got changed got changed
What got converted got converted
What got transcribed got transcribed
What got transliterated got transliterated
IT'S NO ANSWER!!
Doctor CamNC4Me » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:59 pm wrote:“... but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.”
What does that word salad even mean?
Shulem » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:35 pm wrote:ven 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 » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:56 pm wrote: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.
Philo Sofee » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:24 pm wrote:When I was doing apologetics, I used this as a take off for speculating that it had something to do with the new name, if I remember correctly... So there is that. Keep it mysterious, don't say too much, and be just vague enough to help member sort of nod their head while rubbing their chin thinking, yeahhhhhhhhhhhh it really could be something like that! That's brilliant! What a head trip I was on man. I think I got the idea from James R. Harris, who, incidentally was really REALLY pissed at Nibley since he stole all of Harris's hypocaphali and didn't return them but ended up using a lot of them for his own publications. That was the story I was told. It was why Harris NEVER cited anything of Nibley's materials. I asked someone that once, and they told me this story.
Finn the human » Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:54 pm wrote:I think that it’s important for leaders of cults, religions, or what have you, to tease this kind of stuff. When Jesus came to the Americas only a “hundredth part” was recorded. And don’t forget about the sealed part of the Book of Mormon. Also there was the fabled briefcase at the Swedish Rescue. Look guys, there is amazing, wonderful stuff out there that will blow your minds if only you are true and faithful.
The mistake L. Ron Hubbard made was to actually reveal the amazing, wonderful, crazy stuff. Then the mystery and magic is lost and what is left looks a lot like crappy science fiction. Sure Joseph gave us Kokaubeam and other fun wacky stuff, but he left much to the imagination. He knew how to lead and tease the masses. A true visionary in my opinion.
Shulem » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:51 am wrote:The bottom line is that a senior apostle of the church is claiming to not understand the process and is chalking up the method of translation as something nobody can understand or properly explain. If Holland can't explain it then who can? Nobody!
That's where church members are left today. No answers are given and no answers are coming anytime soon. Just have faith in no answers. That's what the church asks and expects. Wait till the next life to get answers.
I have a question » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:55 am wrote:"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." (Mr J.R. Holland, Apostle).
There's a lot wrong with this statement.
1. How can an Apostle of the Church not know where the Book Of Abraham comes from?
2. When Mr Holland says "translated into the word of God", was it not the word of God originally?
3. How is Mr Holland's personal lack of knowledge of the Egyptian language a defence for the Book Of Abraham not bearing any resemblance to what the papyrus actually says and from which Joseph Smith said he translated it?
4. Is I-went-to-a-good-school-and-read-some-books-Mr Holland actually saying, with a straight face, that he doesn't understand why the papyrus actual translation doesn't match what Joseph Smith said it was?
5. Is Mr Holland calling Joseph Smith a liar or a dupe?
This mishmash of a mealy mouthed answer was given under the pressure of a reporter putting him on the spot for answer. The reason his answer is a mess is because he was trying to quickly come up with an apologetic that wasn't already in his mind. The translation of the Book Of Abraham is clearly one of Mr Hollands shelf items. And his demeanour during the interview section covering this shows it causes him discomfort to talk about it. He couldn't give the reporter a straight honest answer, so he produced a jumbled up response and made himself look like an idiot.
In his position Mr Holland could've said:
"Whilst modern egyptologists can find no translation synergy between the Book Of Abraham and the papyrus Joseph Smith used to produce it, and I have no further insight into how Joseph produced it beyond what he himself said - that it was an actual translation of the papyrus; I maintain my personal belief that it is the word of God, even if Joseph was mistaken about where his inspiration for the translated words was coming from."
That would have been an honest and clear statement for Mr Holland to make. It's what the Church and its apologists should say. Because it's the evidentiary and simple matter of fact. But Apostles can't be honest and straightforward, they feel they have to be tricky and slippery in their statements to avoid damaging tithing receipts faith.
Shulem » Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:09 pm wrote:It's almost like Holland is suggesting that something ordinary and of small value was transformed as if by magic into something of great value and that this could only be performed through revelation and the Spirit. It's almost like Holland is admitting that the papyrus Smith used really was just funerary spells and that God used his magical ways to reveal the Book of Abraham with or without a papyrus. Thus, the Catalyst theory is gaining ground.
This also points to the idea that having Egyptologists at BYU is simply no longer needed. They have served their purpose. It's time to relocate them and phase them out. The Church is moving into the direction that papyrus was simply used to stir up Smith's thinking about ancient things in which he knew little of. Keeping that in mind, you will recall Smith pointing at characters and claimed they were the autograph of Abraham. Well, it's that same Spirit that pointed at those characters as Abraham's autograph as is the same Spirit that gave Smith the Book of Abraham. It's solid evidence, if not solid proof itself that Smith's so-called inspiration through the Spirit is bogus. You see, if Smith can't get the autograph right through inspiration how can he be expected to get the Book of Abraham right? When small things are wrong the bigger things are too. And one thing is for sure, Smith was wrong when he claimed characters on his papyrus were the autograph of Abraham. It's at that point that an educated person shouldn't believe another word he says.
Shulem » Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:57 am wrote:An apostle of the church can't give an explanation on how a translation became the word of God? It sounds to me that Holland doesn't understand much of anything. He's a do-do!Jeffrey R Holland wrote: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.
How would it sound if a baker were to say:
So, how did the baker bake the cake?A baker wrote:All I'm saying is what got baked got baked into the cake and the ingredients for that I do not know and don't claim to know and know no ingredients.
Shulem » Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:54 pm wrote:Let's be clear about something:Do-do Holland wrote:What got translated got translated into the word of God
No one alive today can take what got translated and translate it back into Egyptian! The English Explanations of the Facsimiles can NEVER be translated into Egyptian. This is proof that the Egyptian was never translated in the first place!
Isn't that right, Philo?