Book of Abraham rumor?

[_Nomomo]

+2

[_Themis]

They shouldn't. Joseph Smith wasn't God and was often pretty full of himself and did many things that make me cringe. The whole thing screams fantasy, fiction, and fraud, so unless God shows up and tells you it is true - it isn't.

You should also question whether it really is God telling you to believe this fantasy.

Most Mormons have no such witness which I find beyond bizarre. The whole "I feel it is true" BS makes me sick.

I don't know any who claim such an experience, so you might want to ask whether you really did if God isn't willing to give anyone else the same. As to feelings, you said you went on a mission, so I assume you did the same as they did for a while.

If feelings were so true, then why can't they recognize that Joseph Smith didn't know squat about Egyptian and keep trying to defend the Papyrus translation on that basis?

People use feelings to make decisions on what to do or believe all the time, but you are right that it is not a good idea if it does not fit the evidence.

[_Fence Sitter]

Since William hasn't replied yet, I'm guessing what Gee "discovered" was simply the P. N Louvre 3207, 3208, 3209 fragments of a Book of the Dead owned by the same Hor who owned the Document of Breathing. Not a new discovery, but definitely an understudied artifact. I'll be curious to see what Gee has to say about it.

It should be either the Book of Issac or Jacob.

CK has there been any apologetic work done trying to tie P. J S 2 to Joseph?

[_CaliforniaKid]

CK has there been any apologetic work done trying to tie P. J S 2 to Joseph?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The apologists don't want to tie any of the papyri to Joseph except the missing ones.

[_Kevin Graham]

CK has there been any apologetic work done trying to tie P. J S 2 to Joseph?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The apologists don't want to tie any of the papyri to Joseph except the missing ones.

[_Fence Sitter]

CK has there been any apologetic work done trying to tie P. J S 2 to Joseph?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The apologists don't want to tie any of the papyri to Joseph except the missing ones.

As you know, Joseph Smith declared on numerous occasions that the papyri he had contained both the writings of Abraham and Joseph. Correct me if I am wrong but the descriptions of the papyri which contained the Book of Joseph (red ink-better artist etc) seem to match the extant portions of P. J S 2. which Joseph Smith never got around to translating. Has there been any apologetic work claiming P. J S 2 is missing portions that could explain why no Book of Joseph is found on it, or even attempts to link parts of the extant portions with Joseph?

[_Kevin Graham]

As you know, Joseph Smith declared on numerous occasions that the papyri he had contained both the writings of Abraham and Joseph. Correct me if I am wrong but the descriptions of the papyri which contained the Book of Joseph (red ink-better artist etc) seem to match the extant portions of P. J S 2. which Joseph Smith never got around to translating. Has there been any apologetic work claiming P. J S 2 is missing portions that could explain why no Book of Joseph is found on it, or even attempts to link parts of the extant portions with Joseph?

No. The apologists do not want to draw more attention to the subject of Joseph Smith and his papyri, which is precisely what an apologetic piece you describe would do.

[_Fence Sitter]

Do we know if the P. N Louvre 3207, 3208, 3209 fragments were ever part of the Chandler collection? Does Coenen say anything about its provenance?

[_Fence Sitter]

As you know, Joseph Smith declared on numerous occasions that the papyri he had contained both the writings of Abraham and Joseph. Correct me if I am wrong but the descriptions of the papyri which contained the Book of Joseph (red ink-better artist etc) seem to match the extant portions of P. J S 2. which Joseph Smith never got around to translating. Has there been any apologetic work claiming P. J S 2 is missing portions that could explain why no Book of Joseph is found on it, or even attempts to link parts of the extant portions with Joseph?

No. The apologists do not want to draw more attention to the subject of Joseph Smith and his papyri, which is precisely what an apologetic piece you describe would do.

Well I agree with you there to a point. If I am an apologist, strictly playing defense, I would avoid it, but there are always believers who think they can prove everything Joseph said was true, and would venture into areas where the results would not be predictable. Who was the LDS amateur archeologist who spent all that time trying to prove Book of Mormon archeological artifacts existed only to lose his testimony?

No one has tried to show a Book of Jacob existed and link it with any Egyptian history? Seems like the sort of thing Nibley would do. There is nothing sweeter than a new "Bullseye" to add to the list of possible proofs that Joseph Smith was a prophet if one is a believer.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Do we know if the P. N Louvre 3207, 3208, 3209 fragments were ever part of the Chandler collection? Does Coenen say anything about its provenance?

Surprisingly, I haven't seen anyone discuss the provenance of the Louvre fragments, except to say that they're a Book of the Dead owned by the same Hor who owned the Breathing Document.

With regard to the Book of Joseph thing, I think Gee would probably say, if you asked him, that the Book of Joseph is missing as well. But Kevin's assessment is basically correct. The critics haven't drawn much attention to the Book of Joseph, despite the fact that in its own way it is just as problematic for the Church. (Here's just one example of the sort of problematic evidence that surrounds the Book of Joseph.) I don't think the apologists will directly address this issue until and unless the critics force them to.