Kinderhook vs the Papyri

[_Chap]

...

No, that is not what I mean, nor is it what Joseph Smith did.

Forgive me, but neither you nor I are in a position to state flatly what Joseph Smith did. We can only say what we think he probably did.

I would not make so much of this, but in the context of discussions centering on Mormonism unwarranted claims to know things are, in my view, best avoided.

Again, if Joseph Smith was merely a copyist, God could have just appeared and handed him the manuscript instead. Joseph Smith would be completely unnecessary if that is what happened.

Here you follow the procedure of exercising your judgement about what you think it was most reasonable for your deity to do, and using that as a guide to what must have happened. I am sure you are aware that many people will think of a text like this when they see you doing that do the deity formerly known as Yahweh:

Isaiah 55:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I believe when it is stated that Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God, it was a cognitive process involving learning, thinking, the transmission of concepts, events, images, smells, and a whole array of senses and information that needed to be processed and codified into English (at times incorrectly due to his human failings) by Joseph Smith. Since I have never done it, I can't tell you precisely - but I suspect that would be a better representation of what happened. He certainly didn't learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics by doing so. And I doubt he learned reformed Egyptian either when translating the Book of Mormon.

Hmm. I don't call that 'translating' more like 'retelling' or being 'inspired by' another story, as I might sit down to retell Cinderella. And to apply your 'what would it have been reasonable for God to do' test, it does seem a pretty risky way to convey vitally important information to humanity, does it not?

But your mileage may differ.

[_Tobin]

But jesters like Tobin want us to think that Egyptologist Joe Smith translated by the gift and power of God. But when we look at the translation he gave us we can see that Joe Smith's God didn't know the Egyptian language and therefore his translations were bogus. Joe Smith's God was a total idiot. Just look at Facsimile No. 3 and the false wording in the Book of Abraham -- and everything about how the Book of Abraham came forth. What a story!

When you want to actually address the argument I am making, please feel free to do so.

[_Samantabhadra]

Tobin,


You claimed that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer is "entirely unrelated" to the Book of Abraham. But the KEP/EAG is an ordered right-to-left character-for-character rendering of the hieroglyphics in the Sensen papyrus. Clearly the author of the EAG--whom you have identified as Joseph Smith--believed that each character represented in the EAG had about a paragraph's worth of meaning. So how can you assert that the EAG bears no relationship to the Book of Abraham?

NB if you assert that one was "revealed" by God but the other was the product of man's imagination you have only pushed the problem back a step further and made it more severe. Clearly the two texts are related.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,


You claimed that the Egyptian Alphabet and grammar is "entirely unrelated" to the Book of Abraham. But the KEP/EAG is an ordered right-to-left character-for-character rendering of the hieroglyphics in the Sensen papyrus. Clearly the author of the EAG--whom you have identified as Joseph Smith--believed that each character represented in the EAG had about a paragraph's worth of meaning. So how can you assert that the EAG bears no relationship to the Book of Abraham?

NB if you assert that one was "revealed" by God but the other was the product of man's imagination you have only pushed the problem back a step further and made it more severe. Clearly the two texts are related.

Because it makes no sense what-so-ever. The papyri was Egyptian in origin. There is simply no reason to believe it would contain anything but Egyptian myths and stories. They would have no interest in preserving an account written long ago (~2,000BC) by Abraham. And unsurprisingly, this is exactly what has been demonstrated by experts in the field upon examination of the remains of the papyri.

[_Shulem]

Because it makes no sense what-so-ever. The papyri was Egyptian in origin. There is simply no reason to believe it would contain anything but Egyptian myths and stories. They would have no interest in preserving an account written long ago (~2,000BC) by Abraham. And unsurprisingly, this is exactly what has been demonstrated by experts in the field upon examination of the remains of the papyri.

Who shall we believe: Apostate TOBIN or Joseph Smith's right hand man to give us the facts about what Joseph Smith revealed from on high:

MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE December p.236,1835

Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder of the Church & Assistant to the President

"The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the scepters of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which Satan is represented as reigning. Michael the archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit."

But I Paul O note:

The iconography described by elder Cowdery compares well with what we would expect to find on an elaborate funerary roll:
1. Osiris crowned and seated upon his throne holding the crook and flail.
2. assembly of gods and people lined up in registers
3. robed patron with an ankh in hand
4. twisted serpent

Paul O

[_stemelbow]

A letter from LDS physicist George M. Lawrence to Jerald Tanner, dated Jan. 30, 1969, reads in part, “I should pass on to you an idea expressed to me by Glen Wade. He feels the Kinderhook hoax should be used to slowly change Mormons’ minds about the infallibility of their Prophets. By contrast the Papyri fiasco is so important and so basic that Mormons can’t begin to bring themselves to consider reality.”

I've sometimes wondered why ex-Mormons and critics of the Church spend so much time and energy on the Kinderhook Plates when the problems with the Book of Abraham seem to be more damaging "ammunition". Could Dr. Lawrence have put his finger on the reason? Is it that true believers find the Kinderhook Plates less threatening and thus are more willing to investigate them in the initial stages of their disaffection? Just wondering if this fits the experience of any of the ex-Mormons here. Did anyone start with less threatening issues like the Kinderhook Plates before working up the courage to tackle some of the bigger ones?

I just wonder, what's the point of trying to change Mormon's minds at all? The criticisms present possibilities extant faith. Faith presents an unlikely possibility that people just go with because in their minds, faith is evidence. They simply don't need to know how the Book of Abraham came about. Their lives are directed differently. It has nothing to do with the papyri not having anything about Abraham on them, nor whether the question of what is missing could possibly include writings about Abraham. It doesn't matter. What matters is, is there faith and Holy Inspiration involved in their lives.

No doubt critics who seek to change Mormon's minds will always have success but the majority of Mormons will easily see the such critics are missing the boat, and have no desire to understand where the Mormons they go after are coming from.

[_Drifting]

I just wonder, what's the point of trying to change Mormon's minds at all? The criticisms present possibilities extant faith. Faith presents an unlikely possibility that people just go with because in their minds, faith is evidence. They simply don't need to know how the Book of Abraham came about. Their lives are directed differently. It has nothing to do with the papyri not having anything about Abraham on them, nor whether the question of what is missing could possibly include writings about Abraham. It doesn't matter. What matters is, is there faith and Holy Inspiration involved in their lives.

No doubt critics who seek to change Mormon's minds will always have success but the majority of Mormons will easily see the such critics are missing the boat, and have no desire to understand where the Mormons they go after are coming from.

On this basis Paul H Dunn did absolutely nothing wrong and those people who think he did are 'missing the boat'.

[_Chap]

Tobin,


You claimed that the Egyptian Alphabet and grammar is "entirely unrelated" to the Book of Abraham. But the KEP/EAG is an ordered right-to-left character-for-character rendering of the hieroglyphics in the Sensen papyrus. Clearly the author of the EAG--whom you have identified as Joseph Smith--believed that each character represented in the EAG had about a paragraph's worth of meaning. So how can you assert that the EAG bears no relationship to the Book of Abraham?

NB if you assert that one was "revealed" by God but the other was the product of man's imagination you have only pushed the problem back a step further and made it more severe. Clearly the two texts are related.

Because it makes no sense what-so-ever. The papyri was Egyptian in origin. There is simply no reason to believe it would contain anything but Egyptian myths and stories. They would have no interest in preserving an account written long ago (~2,000BC) by Abraham. And unsurprisingly, this is exactly what has been demonstrated by experts in the field upon examination of the remains of the papyri.

I agree with Tobin that the whole story told by Joseph Smith of what he called the 'translation' of the Book of Abraham from the papyri makes no sense at all, and is quite implausible.

On that basis, and after reading the text, it seems overwhelmingly likely that he simply made it all up. This for me is yet another example of the truth of Sethbag's wise dictum "Mormonism is not only not true, it's obviously not true."

I suppose Tobin's grounds for believing otherwise in the face of such circumstances might be that he asked his deity if the Book of Abraham was substantially a true revelation rather than a piece of fiction, and that deity say 'Yes'. Do I have that right?

[_Tobin]

I agree with Tobin that the whole story told by Joseph Smith of what he called the 'translation' of the Book of Abraham from the papyri makes no sense at all, and is quite implausible.

On that basis, and after reading the text, it seems overwhelmingly likely that he simply made it all up. This for me is yet another example of the truth of Sethbag's wise dictum "Mormonism is not only not true, it's obviously not true."

I suppose Tobin's grounds for believing otherwise in the face of such circumstances might be that he asked his deity if the Book of Abraham was substantially a true revelation rather than a piece of fiction, and that deity say 'Yes'. Do I have that right?

Chap, yes, there are really only the two possibilities. I'll add that there is no good reason to believe the position that God revealed the story to Joseph Smith unless God reveals Mormonism is true to you. As I've mentioned to Kish, Quasi, and others, Mormonism is a revealed religion. Basically, if God doesn't show up and tell you it is true, the claims are preposterous and simply can not be believed.

[_Quasimodo]

Chap, yes, there are really only the two possibilities. I'll add that there is no good reason to believe the position that God revealed the story to Joseph Smith unless God reveals Mormonism is true to you. As I've mentioned to Kish, Quasi, and others, Mormonism is a revealed religion. Basically, if God doesn't show up and tell you it is true, the claims are preposterous and simply can not be believed.

As far as I can tell, that should make you the only member. I've heard many burning bosom stories, but yours is the only one that has a visitation from God.

The church will definitely have to revise it's membership numbers.