RFM wrote: Radio Free Mormon Podcast
The Church itself acknowledges that there is nothing in the papyri that has anything to do with the text of the Book of Abraham, there’s no mention of the Book of Abraham on the papyri and they are completely separate and different things.
<snip>
Joseph Smith must have thought he was translating and looking at the characters and coming up with the Book of Abraham but actually he was not translating. Joseph Smith was wrong about the fact he was translating, Joseph Smith thought he was translating the characters while at the same time God is beaming down or revealing to him a text that is inspired that has nothing to do with the characters that Joseph Smith thinks that he is translating.
<snip>
But it was the catalyst that allowed Joseph Smith to receive the inspired text from God that is the Book of Abraham even though Joseph smith thought he was translating the scrolls into the Book of Abraham. What this ends up saying is that Joseph Smith was wrong, his scribes were wrong, everybody associated with his translation of the Book of Abraham were wrong. All the Presidents and leaders of the church for over a hundred years who have continued to repeat what Joseph Smith taught and how he presented it as a direct translation of the writings of Abraham were wrong, but finally, finally now in the latter part of the 20th century when this idea was first conceived, we got it right.
It could be argued that critics simply don’t have the right spirit of the Book of Abraham and are viewing matters from the wrong perspective. The Catalyst Theory provides a means to an end in which Smith’s mind was stimulated through inspiration to restore the lost story of Abraham regardless of being in error about how he translated. Smith claimed divine revelation was responsible in bringing forth the Book of Abraham whereby through him the the story is retold and revivified. It could be argued that if Smith continued his ministry beyond 1844 he would have come to fully understand how he translated and would have explained new understanding to the church, line upon line, precept upon precept.
Bottom line, this thread (Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative) destroys the Catalyst Theory & the Book of Abraham in one fell swoop as well as the apologetic argument from my former days. The way I see it, the only way to take out the Catalyst Theory is to apply the knowledge in this thread which fully exposes how the Book of Abraham is not historical or genuine. RFM, Bill Reel, BYP, and Dan Vogel cannot win the argument over the long run until they endorse and apply the principles explained in *this* thread. It is the key to ending all arguments once and for all.
Book of Abraham Apologist Paul Osborne wrote:
Could Joseph Smith Be In Error?
THE CRITIC’S QUESTION
Did Joseph Smith really believe that a funerary scroll contained the actual autographed writing of Abraham?
PAUL’S ANSWER
Yes. All indications show that the prophet and his assistants believed the funerary papyrus was an autograph.
THE CRITIC’S QUESTION
If Joseph Smith didn’t believe the papyrus was the genuine article, could he have extracted the story of Abraham from it by the power of God?
PAUL’S ANSWER
No. If the papyrus was thought to be only funerary literature there would be no expectation in receiving a revelation about Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt.
THE CRITIC’S QUESTION
How do you square with the fact that the prophet incorrectly thought the roll was genuine when in fact it was not?
PAUL’S ANSWER
It was necessary that the prophet become excited in a spirit of revelation which readied his mind to receive the story of Abraham from the papyrus in order to reveal the Abrahamic account. If the prophet had known the true nature of the papyri, he could not have thought to translate it just as St. Peter would not have tried to go out on the water to greet his Master if he knew beforehand that he would sink (Matt 14:26-31), and neither would Moses have lifted his rod if he didn’t believe the waters would divide (Ex 14:16). Had not the prophet’s assistants believed the papyrus was an original autograph, how hardly could they have supported the translation process.
Joseph Smith was not uninspired just because he was in error about the true nature of the papyrus any more than Christ himself who apparently wasn’t concerned about the reality of germs when he said, “to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man” (Matt 15:20), when in fact unclean hands can spread disease and sicken the body. Who would have thought that unwashed hands could microscopically infect the body before modern doctors learned about germs and bacteria? Jesus used the dirty hand argument merely to express a difference between physical and spiritual traditions − making a point in doctrine, albeit it was based on wrong thinking from a literal point of view.
There is nothing evil in seeing the funerary papyrus as a tool of expressionism to help create spiritual interpretations. Human error is not necessarily evil! Truth can mix with error, existing together to teach correct principles and ideals. Case in point, Jesus saying that dirty hands don’t defile a man, this being correct in a spiritual sense but wrong from a physical point of view. We therefore see that truth and error can work together in harmony for the purpose of making something known within a certain sphere.
Truth can be known even in the midst of error. For example: We know that Isaac was in error when he bestowed the firstborn blessing upon his son Jacob, thinking that he was actually Esau (Gen 27). God wrought power in Isaac who gave the blessing even though Isaac was fooled by his wife and younger son. Does this void the blessing? Heavens no! Does this make Isaac an uninspired fool? Heavens no! Isaac worked with the knowledge he had and bestowed the blessing. But, we might wonder, how was this sacred act sanctioned by God when Isaac was deceived? Isaac trembled when he learned the truth! We may reason that Isaac’s deception was not an issue in which God was determined to expose, but God left Isaac in a state of mental error. The blessing was what mattered and the blessing was true.
So it was with Joseph Smith who through error saw spiritually something greater than what was naturally before him. The translation he gave is no less true than Isaac’s blessing.
Suppose there was a story in the Bible of a prophet who claimed that an old clay document having strange characters contained the lost Book of Isaac. Let’s suppose this prophet translated the tablets through inspiration of God, although it was unknown to him that the document had nothing to do with the patriarch Isaac or his life’s story. Now, suppose this prophet prepared a manuscript and placed the unknown characters in registers on the left side of each page. Then he offers explanations of what the characters represented in effort to produce the Book of Isaac.
Who can say that something can’t be revealed when concentrating on an unrelated symbol or character? A spiritual translator can receive direct revelation from God as a story unfolds within his mind. In this case, ancient writing helps to stimulate the mind into a state of supernatural concentration while the Spirit of God breathes new scripture.
Suppose the See-er deeply stares at the character through a hole in a seer stone — concentrate — look — stare some more, and inspired thoughts flow. Behold, the Book of Isaac comes forth! The clay tablets and the writing on them are only a representation of the original document. Thus, it was used to stimulate thought, transcending the literal meaning of the characters, a revelation was given. Revelations, dreams, visions, and the like often use abstract symbolism and transform it into concrete ideology, as we have plenty of examples in scripture, i.e.: Ezekiel, Daniel, John the Revelator, etc. I see no reason to invalidate this kind of spiritual translating, because with God all things are possible.
A conventional translation will prove the prophet was wrong but a true nonconventional interpretation will prove the prophet was correct. Joseph Smith translated the original papyrus (lost in antiquity) using a nonrelated (funerary) papyrus as a proxy. In short, the papyrus served as a catalyst to open the door to things that pertain to the mysteries of godliness.
UNSUGARCOATED FACTS:
1. Isaac had the Holy Ghost
2. Isaac smelled what he thought was his first son
3. Isaac believed he was laying his hands on Esau
4. Isaac believed a lie while speaking by the power of the Spirit
5. Isaac pronounced the name of “Esau” on Jacob’s head
6. Isaac blessed Jacob with the word of the Lord under the influence of the Holy Ghost
7. Isaac trembled when he learned the truth after the blessing was given
A. Therefore, we know that the Lord will allow a prophet to believe a lie even when the Holy Ghost pronounces inspired blessings by the mouth of that prophet.
B. We know that a prophet can think something that is not true and still operate under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
C. We know that a prophet is not always able to discern the truth and can be lied to even when a lie is for the purpose of doing a righteous deed.
D. We know that a prophet can lay his hands upon a man’s head and think he is another person.
What about Joseph Smith?
1. Joseph Smith had the Holy Ghost
2. Joseph Smith sensed what he thought was 4,000 year old papyri
3. Joseph Smith believed he had in his hands a genuine Abrahamic papyrus
4. Joseph Smith believed false rumors about the papyrus while speaking by the power of the Spirit
5. Joseph Smith pronounced the name of “Abraham” on Hor’s papyrus
6. Joseph Smith blessed the church with the Book of Abraham under the influence of the Spirit
7. Joseph Smith would have trembled had he lived to learn the truth
A. Therefore, we know that the Lord will allow a prophet to believe a false rumor even though the Holy Ghost gives inspired translations through that prophet.
B. We know that a prophet can think something that is not true and still operate under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
C. We know that a prophet is not always able to discern the truth and can be fooled even for the purpose of doing a righteous deed.
D. We know that a prophet can hold Roman funerary papyrus in his hands and think it is 4,000 years old