Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Content transferred from the former board.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

Shulem » Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:35 am
Jeffrey R Holland wrote:
Image

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

A: Yes:
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.
Q:What "translation" is referenced above?

A: EXPLANATIONS for Figures 1-21. For example:
EXPLANATION Fig. 8. wrote:Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.
Q: What are in the writings of Fig. 8 that cannot be revealed to the world?

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:
Shulem wrote: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.
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.
Jeffrey R Holland wrote: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!!

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?

- Do
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:
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.
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!

How would it sound if a baker were to say:
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.
So, how did the baker bake the cake?
Shulem » Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:54 pm wrote:
Do-do Holland wrote:What got translated got translated into the word of God
Let's be clear about something:

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?
Last edited by Shulem on Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

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.

Image

There is nothing in 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.
FACSIMILE NO. 2 wrote: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?

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

Image
FACSIMILE NO. 2 wrote:Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Image

Again, I ask: What specifically in Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 8 is contained in the Kirtland Temple?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

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.

SHULEM: You claim that what got translated got translated into the word of God. Exactly what is it that got translated? Is it the hieroglyphic characters on the papyrus that got translated into the word of God? Is that what you're talking about?

HOLLAND: They got translated into the word of God.

SHULEM: Are the hieroglyphic characters on Facsimile No. 3 translated into God's Explanations or word?

HOLLAND: Yes, it's all the word of God.

SHULEM: If so then God knows the king's name written in the writing. I don't, do you? Does anyone beside God know? How about the poor chap who drew the original picture and labels? Does he know the king's name? He's the one that wrote it, right?

HOLLAND: It's a mystery.

SHULEM: Yep, for you it's a mystery. You're a do-do!


What got translated got translated into his word, man.

Far out!


Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

The following English CANNOT be translated into Egyptian, therefore it was never translated from Egyptian in the first place!
Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

Nor can it be used by Albert Einstein to further modern science!

I'm afraid these Mormon translations given in Facsimile No. 2 are totally unacceptable.

Image

Muhlestein wrote:
Wait, you want me to translate the English version of the Facsimile Explanations back into original Egyptian?

Ugh, I can't do that.


Image
Shulem » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:45 am wrote:But I insist! I want you to take the English version of a part of the Book of Abraham and translate it back into Egyptian so everyone can see that Joseph Smith really was translating Egyptian from the papyrus.

Here you go, Kerry:
Fig. 5. wrote:
"Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

How do you spell: SHULEM, Kerry?

Image
Kerry Muhlestein wrote: Image

You know I can't do that, Shulem.
I know, Kerry, I know. I just want everyone else to know you can't do it.
Doctor CamNC4Me » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:37 pm wrote:Huh. I think you just provided the most rock solid anti argument I’ve seen ref the Book of Abraham. This is it. This angle forces them into the untestable catalyst theory.

- Doc
Shulem » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:06 pm wrote:Yes, my plan is to maneuver them into a single corner which is the Catalyst. This will also demonstrate that the apologetic strategies and arguments used by Nibley, Gee, and others was nothing more than a ruse to buy time based on poor academics and failed inspiration. For those who freak out over the death of the missing roll theory they are more than welcomed to jump off the nearest bridge. The more casualties the merrier!

I'm going to rope the apologists into a single corner and the Red Sea is not going to open up and save them from certain doom. The hammer is falling.
Last edited by Shulem on Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

FACSIMILE NO. 2 wrote:
Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Image
Image

Okay, where is it? Show me!
Prophets wrote:
We don't know!

Image
Elder Holland wrote: I don't know

Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith’s possession exist today. The relationship between those fragments and the text we have today is largely a matter of conjecture.

Here it seems the church is making a case for a missing roll theory. This is based on the claim that there are substantial amounts of missing portions from the original roll so nobody can come to any certain conclusion on the relationship of the hieroglyphic writing on the papyrus Smith used to translate into the Book of Abraham. The church chalks it up as conjecture in spite of all the evidence that shows Smith used characters from the rediscovered papyrus. The church seems to imply that everything is conjecture and nothing can be firmly established leaving the whole thing in question.

Not so! We have exact characters used by Smith to translate and form his interpretations. We can prove whether his translations are legitimate translations by using classic examples at hand:
FACSIMILE NO. 3 wrote:
  • King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
  • Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
  • Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Thus we see from the examples above that Smith was using the very hieroglyphs contained in the registers of the Facsimile and are distinctively called out as such. The relationship between these hieroglyphs and the persons they represent is firmly established. There is no conjecture at play other than in the mind of Joseph Smith and modern apologists who refuse to come to terms.

Smith's translations above can be safely discarded as rubbish.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote:
  • The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian.
  • In these inspired translations, Joseph Smith did not claim to know the ancient languages of the records he was translating.

The essay claims that Smith's knowledge came through the gift and power of God. Of course we know Smith couldn't read Egyptian and neither could the Spirit in which he was heeding!

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are all the proof we need to know that Joseph Smith's feigned gift and power to translate was bogus. The canonized Explanations are rubbish.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

The Book of Abraham was canonized in General Conference of October 1880 under the newly established First Presidency headed by John Taylor. Brigham Young had nearly 30 years to do it but never did. Just as soon as Taylor took the reigns as Church President he canonized the whole of the Pearl of Great Price to include the Book of Abraham as published in the 1842 Times and Seasons. It's curious that Brigham didn't care to canonize the Book of Abraham but Taylor did. There are reasons for that. The Book of Abraham was not Brigham's personal pet like it was for John Taylor who was instrumental in assisting Joseph Smith with printing and publishing the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons.

Notice in the moment Brigham died is when Taylor took matters into his own hands and canonized the book as if it was a feather in his own cap. Would Brigham have approved? I somehow doubt it.

Image

First Presidency headed by John Taylor and Book of Abraham

RIP Brigham Young
Last edited by Shulem on Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder Holland: "What got translated got translated into the word of God"

Post by Shulem »

Shulem » Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:10 pm wrote:
FACSIMILE NO. 2 wrote:
Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.
Image
Image

Okay, where is it? Show me!
Philo Sofee 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!

Okay, so we have one possible answer, according to Philo Sofee: A New Name. Color me not impressed.

But how about we allow others to tell us what temple matters are found in Fig. 8 as Joseph Smith teased his people about temple content contained therein. Remember, we are dealing with the same man that said there was an actual autograph of Abraham on the papyrus, but don't let that deter you.

What's the mystery content of Fig. 8?

1. John Gee says: _____________________________________________________
2. Kerry Muhlestein says: _______________________________________________
3. Apologist A says: ____________________________________________________
4. Apologists B says: ___________________________________________________
5. Apologists C says: ___________________________________________________

Let the apologists or, better yet Church leaders, tell us what Kirtland temple content is contained in the register of Fig. 8!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN TEMPLE OF OSIRIS

Post by Shulem »

"To be had in the Holy Temple"
  • Blessed is the name of OSIRIS forever
  • Resurrection in the name of OSIRIS

Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 8-11 wrote:
Egyptian translation:

O God of those who sleep in death from the beginning of time. The great God, Lord of heaven, earth, the netherworld, and the great seas. Lo, the soul of Osiris Shoshenq will live.
Image
Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 8-11 wrote: Image

Row 1: i.nTr.i sDrw m sp
Row 2: tpii nTr.i aA nbt pt tA
Row 3: dwAt mw.f aA
Row 4: ti anx bA Wsir SAs(nq)

O God of those who sleep in death from the beginning of time. The great God, Lord of heaven, earth, the netherworld, and the great seas. Lo, the soul of Osiris Shoshenq will live.

To be read at every church pulpit
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4572
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

DO NOT BELIEVE IT

Post by Shulem »

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

Image

The real message of the funerary Hypocephalus is not related or associated with the Masonic temple rites instituted by Joseph Smith.


Book of Abraham translations are a lie!




The Church of OSIRIS of Latter-day Saints?

The Book of Abraham

Canonized in Salt Lake City, Transylvania-Utah 1880 by Polygamous Church President Taylor

Image
FACSIMILE EXPLANATION wrote:Image
The above translation is given as far as we
have any right to give at the present time.

Come, let me read to you from the Book of Abraham

Image

I want you to believe in the Explanations of the Facsimiles

Image

BELIEVE


John Gee, I appear before you that I may reveal my word

Image

Yes Master
Image
Post Reply