$30k challenge to Interpreter’s “Team Bayes”

[drumdude]

When you're telling a lie, it is expedient to say as little as possible. Unfortunately for Joseph and the Church, he slipped up by telling everyone he was translating individual Egyptian characters. He wasn't reading words off a rock in a hat, he wasn't being inspired - he was playing Egyptologist. And as we now know, he was simply making it all up. Either God intentionally lied to Joseph, or Joseph intentionally lied to us.

As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation

I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc

This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession

I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.

This afternoon I [Joseph] labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, and during the research

[MG 2.0]

When you're telling a lie, it is expedient to say as little as possible. Unfortunately for Joseph and the Church, he slipped up by telling everyone he was translating individual Egyptian characters. He wasn't reading words off a rock in a hat, he wasn't being inspired - he was playing Egyptologist. And as we now know, he was simply making it all up. Either God intentionally lied to Joseph, or Joseph intentionally lied to us.

I’ve been down this path before along time ago, but again, I am of the opinion that there is some question as to whether or not the Book of Abraham is scripture in the fullest sense.

During the entire process of translation of the Book of Abraham, Joseph never claimed direct inspiration of God. Apparently it was produced through application of his acquired knowledge, rather than with any claim to extraordinary [divine] assistance. [C. Webb, Joseph Smith as a Translator (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1936), p.73]

Although at times Joseph referred to the ancient records as "sacred", he never referred to the Book of Abraham as scripture. In the Doctrine and Covenants, there are many references to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There was no reference in the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to the Book of Abraham even though the Book of Abraham had been purchased 9 years prior and had been published 2 years before the death of Joseph Smith.

The first part of the translation of the Book of Abraham was finally published in Times and Seasons [vol 3, No.9 (March 1,1842), pg 703-706]. The title and preface read as follows: "Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." The use of the words "purporting to be" would seem to indicate at least some degree of doubt on the part of Joseph Smith, Jr. regarding its authenticity. This same preface as written above is repeated verbatim in the LDS History, vol 4, p 524. The original 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great

Price carried the same inscription. In the later editions of the Pearl of Great Price, as published by the LDS Church, the preface is also given, however, without the words, "purporting to be."

The same edition of the Times and Seasons that carried the first portion of the Book of Abraham, is also found the "Wentworth Letter" in which Joseph outlined the beliefs of the church. In the outline, Joseph stated, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Even though the first installment of the Book of Abraham was being published, Joseph neglects to mention it as part of the beliefs of the Church.

Two months prior to Joseph Smith's death, an article was published in the Times and Seasons which stated, "If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an impostor." [Times and Seasons, vol 5, No.7 (April 1,1844), pg 490] What is interesting is that there is no mention of the Book of Abraham, even though it had been published two years prior while Joseph was the editor of the Times and Seasons.

If Joseph Smith was responsible for both the Inspired Translation of the Bible (Inspired Version) and the Book of Abraham AND IF he considered both scriptural, why didn't he modify both to teach the same thing ( either a monotheistic God or plurality of Gods. The abrupt difference would suggest that his translation of the Book of Abraham was simply an honest human effort by one interested in ancient languages. Because his perceptions of the Egyptian alphabet gave rise to the translation that discusses plural gods it does not necessarily endorse that belief. Compare KJV Genesis 1:1-5 with the Inspired Version Genesis 1:3-8 which inidcate monotheism and the Book of Abraham 4:1-5 which inidicates polytheism.

During the 1880 semiannual conference of the LDS Church, the Pearl of Great Price was accepted as one of their standard books of scripture. Along with it, the Book of Abraham was elevated to scriptural status. As canonized scripture, the LDS Church committed itself to the accuracy and validity of the book.

https://2think.org/hundredsheep/Book of Abraham/rlds.shtml

Should it have ever been canonized?

The fact is, it was canonized and we have to live with it. I see the Book of Abraham as more or less a midrash or a riff on some of the ideas that were floating around in Joseph’s head. Some inspired and some not so much.

But that’s just me.

The Book of Mormon? I see that as a whole different matter.

Now, if some day I’m proven to be wrong and the Book of Abraham is scripture in it’s purest sense, then OK.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Now, if some day I’m proven to be wrong and the Book of Abraham is scripture in it’s purest sense, then OK.

This seems to me to be dangerously in opposition to prophets. I'm not aware of any prophet claiming that the Book of Abraham is anything less than pure scripture.

As a critic, my sense is that Joseph made the mistake most con-men make - he got cocky. Pushed the limits too far and it exposed the inner workings of the scam. The argument for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon would be much stronger in the absence of the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham illuminates the scam of the Book of Mormon. Occams razor says if one is proven false, then it's much more likely the other is proven false.

You might even be able to make a Baysian analysis of the probability that the Book of Mormon is a fraud in light of the new evidence on the Book of Abraham.

[MG 2.0]

Now, if some day I’m proven to be wrong and the Book of Abraham is scripture in it’s purest sense, then OK.

This seems to me to be dangerously in opposition to prophets. I'm not aware of any prophet claiming that the Book of Abraham is anything less than pure scripture.

As a critic, my sense is that Joseph made the mistake most con-men make - he got cocky. Pushed the limits too far and it exposed the inner workings of the scam. The argument for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon would be much stronger in the absence of the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham illuminates the scam of the Book of Mormon. Occams razor says if one is proven false, then it's much more likely the other is proven false.

You might even be able to make a Baysian analysis of the probability that the Book of Mormon is a fraud in light of the new evidence on the Book of Abraham.

I am assuming that you read the information that I posted. Was that new to you? Makes some sense, right?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I am assuming that you read the information that I posted. Was that new to you? Makes some sense, right?

I think you are ignoring the plain words of the current church. Here's the very first sentence from the church's website:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... m?lang=eng

Are you putting your historical interpretation above the teachings of the Church? I think that's a dangerous path for a believer, even if I agree with your conclusions as a nonbeliever.

[MG 2.0]

I am assuming that you read the information that I posted. Was that new to you? Makes some sense, right?

I think you are ignoring the plain words of the current church. Here's the very first sentence from the church's website:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... m?lang=eng

Are you putting your historical interpretation above the teachings of the Church? I think that's a dangerous path for a believer, even if I agree with your conclusions as a nonbeliever.

Well, it was canonized. It would be pretty difficult to go back and undo that. It is what it is. So yes, in some form or fashion it is scripture. But according to things I’ve read…posting this one reference in particular…I don’t know that Joseph considered it to be scripture in the same way that he referred to the other standard works as.

For folks that use this justification in leaving the church, that is, their issues with the Book of Abraham, I wouldn’t want to put all my eggs in their basket.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think that's a dangerous path for a believer, even if I agree with your conclusions as a nonbeliever.

I don’t see it that way. I see your path as potentially being the more dangerous.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think that's a dangerous path for a believer, even if I agree with your conclusions as a nonbeliever.

I don’t see it that way. I see your path as potentially being the more dangerous.

Regards,
MG

I think I may be accused of derailment fairly soon. This thread should probably get back on track

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I think I may be accused of derailment fairly soon. This thread should probably get back on track

I appreciate the research on the Book of Abraham, though. I think it's honest of you to take the criticism of the Book of Abraham to heart, which many apologists don't bother to do.

[MG 2.0]

I think I may be accused of derailment fairly soon. This thread should probably get back on track

I appreciate the research on the Book of Abraham, though. I think it's honest of you to take the criticism of the Book of Abraham to heart, which many apologists don't bother to do.

There have been not a few folks that have lost their testimonies over this issue. It is an issue that does require some deep soul searching and questioning.

Regards,
MG