Throwing Joseph Smith under the bus...

[_Drifting]

...as a method for maintaining a belief in the Book of Abraham.

(For the back story on the Book of Abraham and how it came to be please research numerous other threads on this forum).

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)
In terms of the main issues with believability of the Book of Abraham can be summarised as follows.

The translation of the papyrus/facsimilies does not match what modern, qualified Egptologists say.
- It was written in code within the contents of the papyrus by someone at a later time than Abraham.
- We do not have the original papyrus, it's still missing

The second refutation is easily dismissed by the fact that, even if you put to one side the debate about wether we have the actual papyrus or not, we do still have the original facsimiles. From these facsimilies we can date the document and also assess the accuracy of translation. If Joseph got the translation of the facsimilies right then it is fair to assume he would have got it right on any papyrus that were 'missing' (obvioulsy the reverse is true).

As for it being written in code, well here is where you need Joseph Smith and a bus to throw him under. His words on the subject are clearly displayed at the start of this thread. How does the Church deal with this:
Why Did the Prophet Joseph Smith Say He Translated the Writings of Abraham When the Manuscripts Do Not Date to Abraham’s Time?
In 1966 eleven fragments of papyri once possessed by the Prophet Joseph Smith were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. They were given to the Church and have been analyzed by scholars who date them between about 100 B.C.and A.D. 100. A common objection to the authenticity of the book of Abraham is that the manuscripts are not old enough to have been written by Abraham, who lived almost two thousand years before Christ. Joseph Smith never claimed that the papyri were autographic (written by Abraham himself), nor that they dated from the time of Abraham. It is common to refer to an author’s works as “his” writings, whether he penned them himself, dictated them to others, or others copied his writings later. (Seminary student manual)
Note: Seminary also throws Joseph Smith under the bus when it comes to what he said about the Book of Abraham.


But what about the accuracy of Joseph's translations? Again, assuming the missing papyrus theory holds water, we do still have the facsimilies.
Did Joseph translate them correctly? No, at least that is the view of modern Egptologists and to believe Joseph's version you have to disbelieve every single one of them and their evidences.
Are the facsimilies important? Yes, they are inextricably linked to the Book of Abraham by this verse from the first chapter of Abraham:
12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

The only apologetic I have seen to try and escape this linkage is that the phrase I have underlined was in fact written by Joseph Smith as a reference rather than something Abraham wrote on the papyrus (or that someone else wrote in code on the papyrus).

The Book of Abraham is completely indefensable.
The attempts to do so all involve throwing out what Joseph Smith said about the translation and replacing it with conjecture and specualtion - none of which holds any water when properly scrutinised.
You have to replace:
A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

With:
A translation of sacred code hidden within some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, which have since been mislaid, from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egpyt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand on the papyrus and then rewritten into sacred code by somebody else's own hand, upon some other papyrus.
Note: Do not look at the facsimilies as they are not important even though we have published them within the scriptures known as The Book of Abraham.
Also Note: All the Egyptologists and their new techniques and knowledge are not able to identlify this code.

The Church claims the Book of Abraham as holy scripture. I say prove it.

[_bcspace]

The Church claims the Book of Abraham as holy scripture. I say prove it.

Moroni 10:4 and John 7:17 etc. are the only ways to prove it. The reason is because the scriptures, including the Book of Abraham claim things that will never be scientifically shown until the end (as per Zechariah 13:6). Things such as the existence of God, Jesus Christ being the son of God, that he rose on the third day, that he atoned for our sins, etc. Even if you had all possible scientific and archeological proof, you will forever in this life remain unsatisfied as to whether or not the Book of Abraham is holy scripture without a spiritual witness.

[_Drifting]

The Church claims the Book of Abraham as holy scripture. I say prove it.

Moroni 10:4 and John 7:17 etc. are the only ways to prove it. The reason is because the scriptures, including the Book of Abraham claim things that will never be scientifically shown until the end (as per Zechariah 13:6). Things such as the existence of God, Jesus Christ being the son of God, that he rose on the third day, that he atoned for our sins, etc. Even if you had all possible scientific and archeological proof, you will forever in this life remain unsatisfied as to whether or not the Book of Abraham is holy scripture without a spiritual witness.

That's not true.

If you follow the procedure described and the Holy Ghost testifies to you that the Book of Abraham is just nonsense made up by Joseph Smith then you would claim it wasn't the Holy Ghost testifying. In fact, unless it confirms the things that you already believe then it isn't the Holy Ghost. I will go further and say the Holy Ghost is irrelevant in the process for understanding the truth of the Book of Abraham because it only works if it gives you the answer that Mormonism tells you is the right one.

There's a word for that....

In fairness though, you didn't attempt a faith promoting refutation of the facts displayed in the OP.

[_Buffalo]

The Church claims the Book of Abraham as holy scripture. I say prove it.

Moroni 10:4 and John 7:17 etc. are the only ways to prove it. The reason is because the scriptures, including the Book of Abraham claim things that will never be scientifically shown until the end (as per Zechariah 13:6). Things such as the existence of God, Jesus Christ being the son of God, that he rose on the third day, that he atoned for our sins, etc. Even if you had all possible scientific and archaeological proof, you will forever in this life remain unsatisfied as to whether or not the Book of Abraham is holy scripture without a spiritual witness.

A tingly feeling in your tummy doesn't count as proof for most intelligent adults. And we already have proof of authenticity of many scriptures - just not those unique to Mormons.

[_bcspace]

In fairness though, you didn't attempt a faith promoting refutation of the facts displayed in the OP.

What I did was show that you're not really looking to see if the Book of Abraham is Holy Scripture. You're looking to see if it's a historical document. Not even the Bible has been proven to be so. But even after such books are proven such, what then? How does it prove that God exists and all the rest I mentioned? No, you will not believe even if you went back in time and saw Abraham writing with his own hand upon the papyrus and then moved forward to view the subsequent redactions/changes.

[_Buffalo]

In fairness though, you didn't attempt a faith promoting refutation of the facts displayed in the OP.

What I did was show that you're not really looking to see if the Book of Abraham is Holy Scripture. You're looking to see if it's a historical document. Not even the Bible has been proven to be so. But even after such books are proven such, what then? How does it prove that God exists and all the rest I mentioned? No, you will not believe even if you went back in time and saw Abraham writing with his own hand upon the papyrus and then moved forward to view the subsequent redactions/changes.

The Bible is a historical document - so is the Book of Abraham. The Bible dates the bronze and iron age, while the Book of Abraham dates to 1835. As far as the Bible goes, many of its books have been demonstrated to be pseudepigrapha, and many others authentic. The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a work of pseudepigrapha written by Joseph Smith.

[_bcspace]

The Bible dates the bronze and iron age, while the Book of Abraham dates to 1835. As far as the Bible goes, many of its books have been demonstrated to be pseudepigrapha, and many others authentic.

Not near 100% and such proofs are erroneously used by other christians to show it is the word of God.

The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a work of pseudepigrapha written by Joseph Smith.

There has never been any evidence to this effect.

[_Buffalo]

The Bible dates the bronze and iron age, while the Book of Abraham dates to 1835. As far as the Bible goes, many of its books have been demonstrated to be pseudepigrapha, and many others authentic.

Not near 100% and such proofs are erroneously used by other christians to show it is the word of God.

The Book of Abraham has been conclusively proven to be a work of pseudepigrapha written by Joseph Smith.

There has never been any evidence to this effect.

There is no evidence that there is a god to begin with, so your blather about proving something is the "word of god" is meaningless. The facts are facts - Joseph wrote the Book of Abraham in 1835, and that has been conclusively proven. No wiggle room for little wiggling apologist worms.

[_Drifting]

No, you will not believe even if you went back in time and saw Abraham writing with his own hand upon the papyrus and then moved forward to view the subsequent redactions/changes.

When you say Abraham wrote on 'the papyrus' to which papyrus are you referring? The one the Church currently owns, the one that was attached to the facsimiles, the 'lost' papyrus, or some other papyrus?

[_bcspace]

When you say Abraham wrote on 'the papyrus' to which papyrus are you referring? The one the Church currently owns, the one that was attached to the facsimiles, the 'lost' papyrus, or some other papyrus?

Likely some other; the one he actually wrote on.