How important should the Joseph Smith papyri be?

[_sock puppet]

He goofed many times.

If only he had as many hits.

[_Bazooka]

Jehovah was only speaking as a man?

As opposed to the time he caused a jackass to talk in the Old Testament?

Potato, potato....damn, that STILL doesn't work in print....

[_Bazooka]

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.

I've always found it odd that golden plates were so precious that few could even see them and had to be escorted back to Kolob, yet the papyri tissues, the writings of one of gods most favorite people were treated like....tissues.

Yes, the plates were so important to the translation of the Book of Mormon that they couldn't even be used in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Facsimile 1 is the dagger in the heart.
It exists, it's not disputed as being the actual item Joseph used, it's translated incorrectly, it's not written by Abraham, it's not old enough, it's referenced specifically in the Book of Abraham. Game Over.

[_Uncle Ed]

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.

The cylinder is an artifact. We have no artifacts of Abraham but transmitted lore. Genesis is without original provenance, so not even comparable to the cylinder. We have no writings whatsoever of the "Abrahamic" religion predating c. 7th century BCE. Cyrus of course postdates the diaspora, the period of time when the Old Testament as we have it was finally being created. Abraham is a myth, Cyrus is not. And the point remains that if religion, for whatever reason or complex of reasons, works for you then it is the genuine thing.

Historicity is nice, but not essential to any personal religion. If it were, I could not believe in my personal concept for "God"....

[_Uncle Ed]

Joseph Smith was no translator.

I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.

SAUCE

The Lord also said that the Amerinds were Lamanites, and a bunch of other things were said by "the Lord". One hundred percent accuracy is not required. Nor is 24/7 status required in order for a person to be a "translator" at some other place and time. When Joseph Smith holds up a scroll or some plates or a psalter and says what it says, and is shown to be mistaken later, it does not follow that he was never a "translator". It does make absolute confidence in his revelatory powers impossible. Perhaps, given enough time, and some reduction in our technology, Joseph Smith's mistakes can be eradicated from the canon of "history" and he'll become as infallible as Moses or Abraham, et al. the "genuine prophets" of ancient mythology....

[_Uncle Ed]

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?

Uh... yes?

There isn't such a thing as "history". ... nothing predating human memory is factual anymore.

Nonsense. Facts are a somewhat slippery category, but insofar as we acknowledge the existence of facts about the present, we should also acknowledge the existence of facts about the past. In an Einsteinian relativistic view of time, past and present are equally real, equally existent. And regardless of the onotological status of the past, it has causal consequences which can be detected in the present. Like subatomic particles and magnetic fields that can't be directly seen but have detectable, predictable macroscopic effects, the past is indirectly accessible through its detectable, predictable effects upon the present.

Theoretically, yes, and that is the point. Inarguable points of view do not exist, not even in the present. For the unremembered past inarguable facts do not exist for the world of humans. For "God" certainly, but not for us. (That is part of "the perfect joke", by the way.)

So keep trying to discover the immutable "particles" of reality that lie outside of our purview. That's an occupation of time at least, of which we immortals have an unlimited fund....

[_Uncle Ed]

To goof is to imply one makes a mistake or a blunder. The pretended translator wasn't just making a mistake or blundering. He was pretending -- he was lying! He knew he didn't know what the characters really meant. He knew he could't really read Egyptian. He made some stuff up out of thin air with the clear intention of deceiving everyone with his translations and explanations. This is not goofing up. It is lying.



Paul O

Lying is not something that can be shown in this instance. He lied about polygamy, but even at those times it was more like a qualifying rather than lying; e.g. "What a thing it is to be accused of having six wives when I can only count one": Joseph Smith had not cohabited with any but Emma for the last nine months of his life, so in his mind he was telling the truth, from a certain pov.

I believe that Joseph Smith believed that he had a sometimes "on" sometimes "off" spiritual gift for "translating" sacred texts. But he was also trying to improve his common knowledge about languages, taking Hebrew and German lessons for instance. He wasn't a liar, but he also dissembled truth with his enemies, like Abraham....

[_Shulem]

Theoretically, yes, and that is the point. Inarguable points of view do not exist, not even in the present. For the unremembered past inarguable facts do not exist for the world of humans. For "God" certainly, but not for us. (That is part of "the perfect joke", by the way.)

So keep trying to discover the immutable "particles" of reality that lie outside of our purview. That's an occupation of time at least, of which we immortals have an unlimited fund....

You've just made a huge discovery? Don't ask me what.

[_Uncle Ed]

nothing predating human memory is factual anymore.

Therefore, the Grand Canyon does not exist.

Man did not make, create or cause the Grand Canyon. Man was not even around during any of that. The Grand Canyon is not part of "human history"....

[_Shulem]

Lying is not something that can be shown in this instance.

Is that so? I don't think your head is screwed on straight at all. If I told you my name is written in the writing of this very text and you can't find it then you have found me to be a liar. Can you comprehend that, or are you really that stupid?

so in his mind he was telling the truth, from a certain pov

No [personal attack deleted]. In his mind he was lying and hoping other people would believe it. What part of the English language do you not understand?

I believe that Joseph Smith believed that he had a sometimes "on" sometimes "off" spiritual gift for "translating" sacred texts

You can believe that all you want but your belief is based on nothing. Show me anything in Joseph Smith's testimony where he considered himself an on and off revelatory prophet? CFR.

U are [personal attack deleted].