"don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy..."

[_Shulem]

Fellows, there are things within the text of the Book of Abraham that are just as silly as the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. The Egyptian words employed by Joseph Smith are utter BS -- there is nothing that can possibly save Joseph Smith. He faked everything. He was caught with his pants down. Joseph Smith was a Goddamn liar. Tobin is a braindead idiot. You guys are wasting your time talking to him. You might as well communicate with flies buzzing around a stinky turd. The Book of Abraham belongs in the toilet -- flush.

PS. Do not google images of toilet & turd or be prepared to barf!



Paul O

[_Mad Viking]

...God just needs to show up and tell you it is true...

Wouldn't that make things a lot easier? Why doesn't God actually do this?

The whole Mormon concept is set up that way. It is based on preposterous claims (without virtually any physical evidence) of God, angels, and magic books. Many apologists are enamoured with the witness statements, but those are not relevant to anyone. We don't know them and have no reason to believe them. If Mormonism is true, then God has basically set the bar at showing up to demonstrate it is true - or it simply can't be true. And I believe that is God's intent - to get people to actually speak with him.

Again I ask... Why doesn't he show up?

[_Chap]

1. Which parts, if any, of the Book of Abraham as presently canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? If there are parts of the present canonized Book of Abraham that are not from Abraham, where do those parts come from?

The Book of Abraham is from the original story as written down by Abraham. Those originals no longer exist. The depictions are corrupted and almost purely Egyptian in origin and should not be used with the Book of Abraham.

2. How were those parts, if any, which contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham" transmitted to Joseph Smith - by revelation from God? If not, how?

They were translated by exactly the same process the Joseph Smith used with the Book of Mormon. He possessed no ability to understand or read reformed Egyptian and he possess none here. Any conjectures he made about the papyrus should be completely disregarded. Just as I disregard his conjectures about where the Book of Mormon took place (or who the Book of Mormon descendant may or may not be).

3. What is the role of the papyrus in the transmission to Joseph Smith of the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? Was it necessary to that transmission taking place, and if so how?

None. It is merely the impetus. As I've said, if any of it has any bearing on the original, it would be so corrupted as to be unrecognizable. Maybe major themes such as a throne or an altar in the depiction may have survived the alterations, but that is of little significance and the depictions should not be used.

Please, honestly, could you respond specifically and separately to those three particular questions? I am genuinely puzzled, and what you have posted so far does not give me enough information to make sense of your point of view.

I have no idea why you are confused. It makes perfect sense. Now, you may not believe there was original that was corrupted by the Egyptians. But that is entirely your prerogative.

Many thanks for your answers. So to check if I have understood correctly:

1. The current canonized text of the Book of Abraham, as found in the Pearl of Great Price, excepting the pictures reproduced with the text in the PoGP, is essentially "the original story as written down by Abraham."

2. God put the text into Joseph's head, just as he did with the text of the Book of Mormon. (When you use the word 'translated', did you really mean 'transmitted'?)

3. The whole process could have taken place without the presence of the papyrus, which may well have contained no Egyptian text relating to the Book of Abraham at all.

Do I have that correctly?

If I have understood, may I ask a further question?

It is clear that the following text currently printed under facsimile 3, and supposed to be a translation of the words in Egyptian script written as captions to various parts of the common funerary scene there shown, is not a translation of what is actually there in the facsimile, which can easily be read by Egyptologists:

1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

How was this text generated? Did God transmit it to Joseph Smith? If not, given that as you say and as is obvious from the lack of match with the Egyptian text, he could not translate Egyptian, where did this text come from? Did Smith make it up? If he did make it up, how do we know that he did not also make up other parts of the Book of Abraham, or indeed the whole of it?

[Guest]

Again I ask... Why doesn't he show up?

He did in my case. That is why I'm no longer an ex-mormon/atheist. I believe that is the only reason to be a Mormon in fact. TBMs simply believe because it makes them feel good and they already have one foot out the door because they have no firm basis to believe Mormonism (or in my case critique Mormonism). They are lemmings in my opinion, unable to discern between what is true and false and using feelings instead of knowledge, study, reason, and actual inspiration as the basis for their belief. That is also how I attribute the rise of so many false doctrines within the LDS Church and community such as the belief that man can and will be God. That is also the source of unending troubles within and without the Church which are unfortunate.

True belief in God should be evidenced by power of God showing up in your daily life. This is manifested in your life through love and service that you give to others (and is the only way it can possibly be manifest too). Miracles, blessings, healing and all the powers of God should and ought to be manifest by the faithful and those that truly know and follow God. Those are the proof of the true Church of God and the true followers of God. And sadly that is rare thing in the LDS Church.

[_Tobin]

1. The current canonized text of the Book of Abraham, as found in the Pearl of Great Price, excepting the pictures reproduced with the text in the PoGP, is essentially "the original story as written down by Abraham."

Just a minor correction, it is incomplete and unfinished.

2. God put the text into Joseph's head, just as he did with the text of the Book of Mormon. (When you use the word 'translated', did you really mean 'transmitted'?)

No, it was an active process with Joseph Smith. Otherwise, Joseph Smith involvement in any translation would have been unnecessary. God should have just handed him the text and called it a day. That apparently isn't the way he worked with Joseph Smith and used this process to teach Joseph Smith as well.

3. The whole process could have taken place without the presence of the papyrus, which may well have contained no Egyptian text relating to the Book of Abraham at all.[

No, because Joseph Smith would have had no reason to ask or wonder about it.

How was this text generated? Did God transmit it to Joseph Smith? If not, given that as you say and as is obvious from the lack of match with the Egyptian text, he could not translate Egyptian, where did this text come from? Did Smith make it up? If he did make it up, how do we know that he did not also make up other parts of the Book of Abraham, or indeed the whole of it?

It is merely Joseph Smith conjecture and attempts to understand that depictions and in his head. There is no basis to believe the Joseph Smith was handed translations, or understanding from the Lord - but it was an active process of trial and error with large gaps in which he simply got it wrong. The unfinished nature of the Book of Abraham clearly connotates that since it means Joseph Smith didn't understand or comprehend what was before him. Of the unfinished work, if you find it insprired, great. If not, that is also you prerogative. That is true for everything else the Joseph Smith did and said as well.

[_Chap]

Thanks. Your view is becoming clearer. Now:

...

2. God put the text into Joseph's head, just as he did with the text of the Book of Mormon. (When you use the word 'translated', did you really mean 'transmitted'?)

No, it was an active process with Joseph Smith. Otherwise, Joseph Smith involvement in any translation would have been unnecessary. God should have just handed him the text and called it a day. That apparently isn't the way he worked with Joseph Smith and used this process to teach Joseph Smith as well.

Since Joseph Smith had no ability or knowledge relevant to the task of passing on the Book of Abraham (which we have established was probably not on the papyrus in any way), in what way was Smith involved in an 'active process', apart from writing down what God told him?

3. The whole process could have taken place without the presence of the papyrus, which may well have contained no Egyptian text relating to the Book of Abraham at all.[

No, because Joseph Smith would have had no reason to ask or wonder about it.

But why was this particular papyrus needed as the catalyst for Smith's curiosity? According to you the likelihood is that it contained little or nothing related to the original Book of Abraham. So why was the Book of Abraham only revealed when this particular papyrus came into Smith's possession?

[_Tobin]

Since Joseph Smith had no ability or knowledge relevant to the task of passing on the Book of Abraham (which we have established was probably not on the papyrus in any way), in what way was Smith involved in an 'active process', apart from writing down what God told him?

I really don't know what Joseph Smith saw since I have never been through that process with the Lord. I don't know if he saw was images, the events themselves, or impressions such a feelings, smells, tastes or other senses of the era, or what. I seriously doubt Joseph Smith was a mere copyist and believe that what he was shown was for his instruction and benefit.

3. The whole process could have taken place without the presence of the papyrus, which may well have contained no Egyptian text relating to the Book of Abraham at all.

No, because Joseph Smith would have had no reason to ask or wonder about it.

But why was this particular papyrus needed as the catalyst for Smith's curiosity? According to you the likelihood is that it contained little or nothing related to the original Book of Abraham. So why was the Book of Abraham only revealed when this particular papyrus came into Smith's possession?

It was merely the impetus. The existance of the papyri was the spark that lit the fuse of Joseph Smith inquiry to the Lord and in that sense it was necessary - otherwise, what we have of the Book of Abraham would not exist. I certainly don't think ancient Egyptian papyri were a common item that you bought at the corner store in Joseph Smith time (nor even ours).

[_Chap]

Since Joseph Smith had no ability or knowledge relevant to the task of passing on the Book of Abraham (which we have established was probably not on the papyrus in any way), in what way was Smith involved in an 'active process', apart from writing down what God told him?

I really don't know what Joseph Smith saw since I have never been through that process with the Lord. I don't know if he saw was images, the events themselves, or impressions such a feelings, smells, tastes or other senses of the era, or what. I seriously doubt Joseph Smith was a mere copyist and believe that what he was shown was for his instruction and benefit.

Your opinion here seems to be simply conjecture. As the Mighty Builder said some in many posts a little while back:

You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there.

Personally, I find the 'Joseph Smith made it all up' hypothesis much more economical, and more consonant with what we know of him.

3. The whole process could have taken place without the presence of the papyrus, which may well have contained no Egyptian text relating to the Book of Abraham at all.

No, because Joseph Smith would have had no reason to ask or wonder about it.

But why was this particular papyrus needed as the catalyst for Smith's curiosity? According to you the likelihood is that it contained little or nothing related to the original Book of Abraham. So why was the Book of Abraham only revealed when this particular papyrus came into Smith's possession?

It was merely the impetus. The existance of the papyri was the spark that lit the fuse of Joseph Smith inquiry to the Lord and in that sense it was necessary - otherwise, what we have of the Book of Abraham would not exist. I certainly don't think ancient Egyptian papyri were a common item that you bought at the corner store in Joseph Smith time (nor even ours).

So - the only role played by the papyrus was that it got Joseph thinking about ancient undeciphered texts. In his time, a text in Egyptian hieroglyphs, found with a mummy, was just the thing to promote such thoughts. An ancient Egyptian compendium of erotic jokes (had such a thing existed, and been buried with the mummy of a particularly humorous Egyptian) would have been just as good.

[_Tobin]

So - the only role played by the papyrus was that it got Joseph thinking about ancient undeciphered texts. In his time, a text in Egyptian hieroglyphs, found with a mummy, was just the thing to promote such thoughts. An ancient Egyptian compendium of erotic jokes (had such a thing existed, and been buried with the mummy of a particularly humorous Egyptian) would have been just as good.

No, because an original did exist at one time (long ago). The current papyri just bears no similarity to it and what was shown to Joseph Smith was the original.

[_Chap]

So - the only role played by the papyrus was that it got Joseph thinking about ancient undeciphered texts. In his time, a text in Egyptian hieroglyphs, found with a mummy, was just the thing to promote such thoughts. An ancient Egyptian compendium of erotic jokes (had such a thing existed, and been buried with the mummy of a particularly humorous Egyptian) would have been just as good.

No, because an original did exist at one time (long ago). The current papyri just bears no similarity to it and what was shown to Joseph Smith was the original.

Maybe you have misunderstood my comment?

I say that because your reply seems to agree with the point I was trying to make. You say that what Smith saw in the 19th century (that is, the physical piece of papyrus purchased from a traveling showman - you know the story) was, in your contention, a document whose contents bore no relation to the original text of the Book of Abraham, which had effectively been lost long ago. But because seeing this irrelevant (but genuinely ancient) document made Smith curious, God let him see the REAL Book of Abraham by some means unspecified, and that is where the present text in the PoGP came from, not the papyrus purchased by Smith.

But since the contents of the document bought from the traveling showman bore no relation to the Book of Abraham, surely any other text in hieroglyphics could have done the job just as well?