Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_Brackite]

The LDS Apologist, Jeff Lindsay believes that the Book of the Dead was not thought to have been the Book of Joseph, by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Here is what the LDS Apologist, Jeff Lindsay stated:

While concurring that the Book of Breathings does not contain red characters and does not appear to be "beautifully written" or "perfectly preserved," the argument is offered that the description of a scroll having red ink only applies to only one of two scrolls, and that the scroll with the red ink was the Book of Joseph, not the Book of Abraham. However, the description of the original scrolls makes no distinction between the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph. To say that Oliver was "giving pride of place" to only one record while seeming to describe both is unconvincing to me. Furthermore, other eyewitnesses, as noted above, described the papyrus records containing the writings of Abraham and Joseph in much the same terms, mentioning red and black ink, giving no hint that the two records looked different.

( Link: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml , Bold Emphasis Mine. )



However in the Year of 1841, Eyewitness William I. Appleby stated:

"there is a perceptible difference between the writings [of Abraham and Joseph]. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe"

(http://www.buchabraham.mormonismus-onli ... onance.htm)

The Book of the Dead was what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery thought and believed to be the Book of Joseph.

Here is a Link to more evidence and information on this interesting Topic:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/70 ... tml?page=4

[_CaliforniaKid]

I swear I get more confused as time goes by...

I think William does, too.

To answer your questions, the apologists whose work I really respect-- the ones who have not sold their souls to the god of scripture literalism-- tend to adhere to something like a catalyst theory or direct revelation theory. With respect to the GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language), they see it as anything from a catalystically-inspired theological document like the Book of Abraham (though it obviously gets the linguistic stuff wrong) to a scribally-directed speculative project that was largely separate from the Book of Abraham. This last is Sam Brown's position. I'm convinced that Brown arrives at his conclusion on inadequate grounds, though, and that he isn't fully informed as to some of the relevant evidence. I believe it can be demonstrated not only that Joseph Smith was the driving force behind the GAEL and took full ownership of it, but also that the GAEL served as the basis for the translation of Abr. 1:1-3 and a few portions thereafter. Brown has unfortunately been influenced by some really inaccurate apologetics, like those of Nibley and Gee.

[_Analytics]

As far as I can tell, on the Book of Abraham issue the apologists have lost badly. You could argue that technically the game isn’t over, but that is only in the sense that a basketball game that is 113 – 7 with 1:23 left in the fourth isn’t over. Whoever denies this has as much credibility as Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (Baghdad Bob), claiming that there were no American troops in Baghadad and that Iraq was winning the war.

They have all sorts of arguments to justify belief that the Book of Abraham is true and that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about. They’ll try to focus on the “translation” itself rather than on the papyri or on the facsimiles, or focus on the papyri we don’t have as opposed to the papyri that we do have. But they also won’t hesitate to look at the documents we have and suggest that there are subtle hints indicate that it really is from Abraham but that is hidden in a layer underneath the common Egyptian. They’ll even suggest that the papyri has nothing to do with it and that the Book of Abraham, but that the "translation" is a accurate translation of a document Joseph Smith never had in his position yet that once really did exist.

It’s just attempts to grasp at straws and deny the evidence in front of us.

[_JohnStuartMill]

To my knowledge, images of the entire collection of documents known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers will accompany the forthcoming volume.

td:

Last I heard, most well informed apologists embraced the CT (catalyst theory), or maybe the MT, (mnemonic theory).

I don't believe that has ever been the case. Of course, I'm not sure there has ever been a significant number of people who could have been characterized as "well informed apologists". But of those I've known, very very few bought into the "mnemonic device" theory. In fact, its original proponent apparently no longer considers it a tenable proposition.

Unfortunately, when you say "catalyst theory" you're making reference to something that manifests itself in very different ways. For example, I believe that the Book of Abraham was produced in the same fashion as the Book of Mormon and D&C 7, but I also remain persuaded that these papyri have a relationship to Ptolemaic Jewish thought and practices, and that an Abraham text did appear on the lost portion of papyrus (the extant portion representing only a mere fraction of the original whole). That, of course, differs from Bokovoy's thinking in a very significant way.

And that's about as much of an answer as you'll ever get from me on this particular message board ...

What a load of BS. Is this how L. Ron Hubbard came up with Dianetics, too?

Just how nonsensical and indefensible does your religion have to be for you to admit that it's crap sandwich?

[_bcspace]

I swear I get more confused as time goes by...

You might want to avail yourself of Book of Abraham for Dummies

[_Brackite]

Brown has unfortunately been influenced by some really inaccurate apologetics, like those of Nibley and Gee.

Hence, Here is the Link to this Great Discussion Thread:

Why Nibley and Gee cannot be trusted:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3715

[_Pokatator]

The papyri were lost because Emma refused to part with them, and her stepson (after Emma's death) divided the damn things up and got what he could for them from the highest bidders.

Am I to value this work of yours when you refer to it in such a demeaning manner? I guess I can understand your frustration, they must feel like an albatross around your neck.

[_William Schryver]

td:

Doesn't the LDS church have the originals? Since they claim to be in possession of one of the most spectacular finds in modern history, (the actual writings of Abraham, or something along those lines) why would they not have allowed the Smithsonian to take a gander at them?

And, of course there are others who have similar copies as those in Brent's possession, and the LDS church could have certainly given copies to LDS experts right?

I know you don’t realize that you’re asking silly questions, but you are. And I guess it’s just fine for you to do so. After all, it’s proven to be a fruitful field for amateurs and ignorant people of all stripes. Look at me! The field was so absent of cutters, that even I was able to find something to talk about when I waded into the long grass.

Are you suggesting the leaders of the LDS church can't view the originals? Are the originals missing?

The “originals” of what? Do you know what you’re asking?

Didn't Nibley do some work with them thirty or forty years ago?

He did. A little. Very little. As a result, he made some mistakes. And, to his credit, I think he made some extremely prescient observations.

He was the last one to work with the “originals” until the 21st century.

[_William Schryver]

The papyri were lost because Emma refused to part with them, and her stepson (after Emma's death) divided the damn things up and got what he could for them from the highest bidders.

Am I to value this work of yours when you refer to it in such a demeaning manner? I guess I can understand your frustration, they must feel like an albatross around your neck.

[Shakes head vigorously, slaps self up side the head ...]
Oh, yeah!

Now I remember why this is no place to talk about this stuff.

Carry on ...

[_TAK]

I swear I get more confused as time goes by...

You might want to avail yourself of Book of Abraham for Dummies

The Book of Abraham IS for dummies!


I wish I could take credit for that..