How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

[_DarkHelmet]

It seems to me, if the claims of the church are true, the Joseph Smith papyri should be one of the most important religious artifacts discovered in the past 200 years. Its the type of thing Indiana Jones would dig up to keep it out of the hands of the Nazis. The New York Metropolitan Museum handed it over to the church without much fuss. If they thought they actually had writings of Abraham, or even writings that dated from the time of Abraham and might possibly be his writings that they would have let it go so easily? Instead they called the church and told them to come pick up their crap. And since the discovery of the papyri, nobody cares, not even the church leaders and scholars at BYU. That alone should be a huge red flag.

[_zeezrom]

It seems to me, if the claims of the church are true, the Joseph Smith papyri should be one of the most important religious artifacts discovered in the past 200 years. Its the type of thing Indiana Jones would dig up to keep it out of the hands of the Nazis. The New York Metropolitan Museum handed it over to the church without much fuss. If they thought they actually had writings of Abraham, or even writings that dated from the time of Abraham and might possibly be his writings that they would have let it go so easily? Instead they called the church and told them to come pick up their crap. And since the discovery of the papyri, nobody cares, not even the church leaders and scholars at BYU. That alone should be a huge red flag.

The church leaders aren't perfect. It will take some time for them to realize its importance.

[_Uncle Ed]

Unless it can be shown that the fragments are what Joseph Smith used they are not important. The facsimile is the only fly in the ointment by association. Joseph Smith was no translator. He goofed many times. Even expert translators do not agree on the best words to convey ideas through translating. If the original papyri existed, like the gold plates, then critics could study something to make comparisons. As it is, the book of Abraham is in the same boat with the Book of Mormon, and any "inspired" changes to the Bible that Joseph Smith made. It all comes down to if it "works for you". If it doesn't, then move on in your searching....

[_Fence Sitter]

Unless it can be shown that the fragments are what Joseph Smith used they are not important.

The KEP and nearly every contemporary quote we have describing the contents of the papyri show the fragments to be what Joseph Smith used.

[_Sethbag]

Actually, we have been lead to believe that Hugh Nibley died of natural causes. That's all part of the conspiracy to hush up what really happened. What really happened is that he opened the crate that contained the real writings of Abraham (you know, the supposedly "lost papyrus" that is the actual source of the Book of Abraham, not the lamer Book of Breathings crap they have foisted on us all as a distraction) and his face melted off.

I guess you have to be wearing the Urim and Thummim and wielding the Sword of Laban in order to be able to view this stuff without similar face-melting results.

The reason Joseph Smith had to use his scrying stone to view this stuff remotely is that he lost the breastplate and the bow with the magic crystals in it, along with the Sword of Laban, after the whole Martin Harris 116 pages incident.

In the end, the actual papyrus with the Book of Abraham was wheeled on a dolly, in a non-descript wooden crate, and added to a huge stack in a nearly endless row of similar such crates in a vast cavern warehouse under the mountains east of Salt Lake City. You know, the warehouse where sit crated up all the Nephite and Lamanite artifacts, waiting for the day the Church will throw open the doors and reveal this secrete hoard to the world, and cackle triumphantly "we told you so, bitches!"

[_Chap]

Unless it can be shown that the fragments are what Joseph Smith used they are not important. The facsimile is the only fly in the ointment by association. Joseph Smith was no translator. He goofed many times. Even expert translators do not agree on the best words to convey ideas through translating. If the original papyri existed, like the gold plates, then critics could study something to make comparisons. As it is, the book of Abraham is in the same boat with the Book of Mormon, and any "inspired" changes to the Bible that Joseph Smith made. It all comes down to if it "works for you". If it doesn't, then move on in your searching....

No it doesn't. If the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Ramayana "works for me" that says nothing about its truth value.

I think you need to look at the video referenced in this post. It is humorous in expression, but deadly accurate in its summary of the evidence that the Book of Mormon is a fake imagined by Joseph Smith.

Brother Jake explains the book of Abraham

A very short and succinct explanation of the Book of Abraham.

[_Themis]

Unless it can be shown that the fragments are what Joseph Smith used they are not important.

It's been shown already. Someone has given a link, but Mormonthink is a good place to start. Have fun.

The facsimile is the only fly in the ointment by association.

All three are a are a problem since he got them all wrong.

Joseph Smith was no translator.

True.

He goofed many times.

It would be more accurate to say he made it up.

[_Uncle Ed]

... It all comes down to if it "works for you". If it doesn't, then move on in your searching....

No it doesn't. If the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Ramayana "works for me" that says nothing about its truth value.

I think you need to look at the video referenced in this post. It is humorous in expression, but deadly accurate in its summary of the evidence that the Book of Mormon is a fake imagined by Joseph Smith.

Brother Jake explains the book of Abraham

A very short and succinct explanation of the Book of Abraham.

Pretty much everything of importance in http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Book-Abraham-Manuscripts/dp/1599551403 "The Story of the Book of Abraham" by Donl Petersen. Very entertaining and accurate, the video I mean.

Nevertheless, religion isn't about facts as much as it is about results. You don't really believe that the pagan ancients really believed that their myths were anchored in history, do you?

There isn't such a thing as "history". "Historicity", yes, but not history: if by that you mean that there is one, bonafide factual account (if we could only know which one it is), that we actually can ferret it out of the gaping holes we define as "evidence". We are stuck in the present (and it doesn't always feel like a gift to me), and nothing predating human memory is factual anymore. So religion should be separated from any such demand. Mormonism has a lot to learn about that, but it isn't alone....

ETA: I think you meant the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon....

[_CaliforniaKid]

In the end, the actual papyrus with the Book of Abraham was wheeled on a dolly, in a non-descript wooden crate, and added to a huge stack in a nearly endless row of similar such crates in a vast cavern warehouse under the mountains east of Salt Lake City. You know, the warehouse where sit crated up all the Nephite and Lamanite artifacts, waiting for the day the Church will throw open the doors and reveal this secrete hoard to the world, and cackle triumphantly "we told you so, bitches!"

That is an awesome mental picture. :)

Actually, there may well be such a warehouse. When I was researching John Brewer, I found some evidence that a number of his forged "Nephite" artifacts had ended up in the Church's and BYU's possession and been relegated to ignominious, uncatalogued storage. I tried repeatedly to contact the curator at BYU about seeing the Paul Cheesman collection (which I know for a fact they own), but he never responded. In the Church's case, the people at the Church History Library told me they don't think the artifacts are in the Library's collection, but the Library deals mainly in documents; artifacts are mostly stored in a warehouse somewhere. (They told me where, but I forget.) If they have them, though, they're not saving them up for a big reveal. They're keeping them out of circulation because they're an embarrassment.

[_Chap]

...

Nevertheless, religion isn't about facts as much as it is about results. You don't really believe that the pagan ancients really believed that their myths were anchored in history, do you?

There isn't such a thing as "history". "Historicity", yes, but not history: if by that you mean that there is one, bonafide factual account (if we could only know which one it is), that we actually can ferret it out of the gaping holes we define as "evidence". We are stuck in the present (and it doesn't always feel like a gift to me), and nothing predating human memory is factual anymore. So religion should be separated from any such demand. Mormonism has a lot to learn about that, but it isn't alone....

I am not arguing about religion. I am arguing about whether the Book of Abraham can reasonably be taken to represent writings that represent the views of a real person who actually did match the characteristics and supposed historical situation of the person called Abraham in the Book of Genesis.

That question can be answered to a fair degree of certainty. Rather less certainty than the question "Was Washington the first President of the US". But about the same degree of certainty as the question 'Does the "Cylinder of Cyrus" represent the substance of a proclamation by an ancient Iranian ruler of that name c. 600 BC?'. Many questions about history do have fairly certain answers that any person in good faith can give at least conditioned assent to.

If holding on to your religion forces you to dissent from that view, have another look at your religion before you give up the idea that reasonable certainty about some parts of the past is possible.