LDS.org Gospel Topics article about the Book of Abraham

[scottie]

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translati...ook-of-abraham

[Blueintheface]

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translati...ook-of-abraham

You do know this is from 2007, right?

[Pheidippides]

You do know this is from 2007, right?

Is it? Several sources, pro and con church, are claiming it is new. Perhaps an expanded version of the original page? I've read it just now but I have now clue when it was posted.

[Blueintheface]

Is it? Several sources, pro and con church, are claiming it is new. Perhaps an expanded version of the original page? I've read it just now but I have now clue when it was posted.

Forgot to put a smiley. (See Dwight's link above as a reference)

[SoCalCoug]

You do know this is from 2007, right?

It has footnotes citing publications from 2013 and 2014.

[SoCalCoug]

Forgot to put a smiley. (See Dwight's link above as a reference)

Crap. I didn't read up the thread high enough.

[Uncle Ted]

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translati...ook-of-abraham

After Joseph Smith examined the papyri and commenced “the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,” his history recounts, “much to our joy [we] found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham.”15

No mention of the Book of Joseph of Egypt?

<Translation of some of the Characters.> 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,

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSu...ocale=eng&p=50

Brigham Young and/or the RLDS drop the ball when they failed to get that translated. Joseph of Egypt rocked.

[Northwestcoug]

Serious question. Would it harm the faith of many members to take out the fascimiles from the scriptures? Those are the only things that physically tie the BOA to the papyri. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that article is trying to imply about the fascimiles (translations are wrong, but not really! Look at the alligator and the four corners of the earth!). But they are throwing up multiple theories that lead to the very loose interpretation of the BOA. They are coming very close to implying that the papyri shouldn't be viewed as a necessary physical source for the translation.

So, most agree that the interpretation of the fascimiles are, ahem, ridiculous. And, the church wants most to believe that we don't have the source material anymore for the BOA (the long scroll theory which basically has one source; not very believable). So why not take them out? They have no meaningful use anymore (aside from keeping kids awake during sac meeting). Sure, they were used as bonafides to show JS was a revelator. But now that they don't anymore, take 'em out.

Are they really that important to the faith of the general membership?

[Blueintheface]

Serious question. Would it harm the faith of many members to take out the fascimiles from the scriptures? Those are the only things that physically tie the BOA to the papyri. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that article is trying to imply about the fascimiles (translations are wrong, but not really! Look at the alligator and the four corners of the earth!). But they are throwing up multiple theories that lead to the very loose interpretation of the BOA. They are coming very close to implying that the papyri shouldn't be viewed as a necessary physical source for the translation.

So, most agree that the interpretation of the fascimiles are, ahem, ridiculous. And, the church wants most to believe that we don't have the source material anymore for the BOA (the long scroll theory which basically has one source; not very believable). So why not take them out? They have no meaningful use anymore (aside from keeping kids awake during sac meeting). Sure, they were used as bonafides to show JS was a revelator. But now that they don't anymore, take 'em out.

Are they really that important to the faith of the general membership?

I don't see it as a really important part of the inoculation process, no. Just my opinion.

[Solon]

Serious question. Would it harm the faith of many members to take out the fascimiles from the scriptures? Those are the only things that physically tie the BOA to the papyri. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that article is trying to imply about the fascimiles (translations are wrong, but not really! Look at the alligator and the four corners of the earth!). But they are throwing up multiple theories that lead to the very loose interpretation of the BOA. They are coming very close to implying that the papyri shouldn't be viewed as a necessary physical source for the translation.

So, most agree that the interpretation of the fascimiles are, ahem, ridiculous. And, the church wants most to believe that we don't have the source material anymore for the BOA (the long scroll theory which basically has one source; not very believable). So why not take them out? They have no meaningful use anymore (aside from keeping kids awake during sac meeting). Sure, they were used as bonafides to show JS was a revelator. But now that they don't anymore, take 'em out.

Are they really that important to the faith of the general membership?

When I was in graduate school, I once showed the facsimiles to a really prominent Egyptologist.
In a Charles Anthon-like moment, he basically said, I cannot read a sealed facsimile "with all due respect to the Mormon religion, these are ridiculous."

[Uncle Ted]

Serious question. Would it harm the faith of many members to take out the fascimiles from the scriptures? Those are the only things that physically tie the BOA to the papyri. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that article is trying to imply about the fascimiles (translations are wrong, but not really! Look at the alligator and the four corners of the earth!). But they are throwing up multiple theories that lead to the very loose interpretation of the BOA. They are coming very close to implying that the papyri shouldn't be viewed as a necessary physical source for the translation.

So, most agree that the interpretation of the fascimiles are, ahem, ridiculous. And, the church wants most to believe that we don't have the source material anymore for the BOA (the long scroll theory which basically has one source; not very believable). So why not take them out? They have no meaningful use anymore (aside from keeping kids awake during sac meeting). Sure, they were used as bonafides to show JS was a revelator. But now that they don't anymore, take 'em out.

Are they really that important to the faith of the general membership?

But if they took the facsimiles out we would not have a picture of God sitting on his throne (with a boner), revealing through the heavens the grand keywords of the priesthood (shown in facsimile 2, figure 7).

Fac2-7.jpg

I always use this figure when the question of why women don't get ordained comes up.

[Northwestcoug]

But if they took the facsimiles out we would not have a picture God sitting on his throne (with a boner), revealing through the heavens the grand keywords of the priesthood (shown in facsimile 2, figure 7).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4517[/ATTACH]

I always use this figure when the question of why women don't get ordained comes up.

[TripletDaddy]

Getting rid of the facsimiles would be a serious blow to the local tourism trade at the BYU Jerusalem Center. What are the students going to take home as souvenirs?

And where does it end? First you get rid of the facsimiles, then what? The affordable silver rings with hebrew lettering on them? the leather sandals with single toe strap? I want to steer clear of such a slippery slope.

[Jeff Lebowski]

David Bokovoy weighs in on FB:

As many have already acknowledged, this new essay is an important step forward towards a thoughtful, honest assessment of the Book of Abraham. If nothing else, it provides the very first explicit laying out of a Catalyst theory in a correlated Church publication. This allows Latter-day Saints to adopt the view that the BoA was not on the papyri Joseph Smith possessed as an acceptable orthodox option.

Still, I have many concerns with the essay. One of my major issues is that even though it allows for a Catalyst theory, all of the footnotes take readers to LDS apologetic works that assume a literal working translation of the papyri, i.e. Gee and Muhlestein. This hardly seems balanced.

Also, I have many issues with some of its basic assertions that may seem trivial, but for me really are important. For example, the essay states:

"Most scholars today locate “Chaldea” (or Ur) in southern Mesopotamia, removed from the area of Egyptian influence, but cogent arguments have been made for a northern location, within the realm of Egyptian influence."

The authors then site two LDS scholars who have tried to make this claim. To be more accurate, the statement should read, "Virtually all contemporary scholars today locate 'Chaldea' (or Ur) in southern Mesopotamia, removed from the area of Egyptian influence. Ur is the most well established Mesopotamian site in the Bible next to Babylon. There's absolutely no doubt that the Ur in question in the Priestly source is Babylonian Ur. However, two BYU scholars have presented weak arguments rejected by the academic community for a northern location, within the realm of Egyptian influence."

I kind of like the idea of doing these articles, but not if they are going to just hand it off to the FAIR crowd. Ugh...

[SeattleUte]

Getting rid of the facsimiles would be a serious blow to the local tourism trade at the BYU Jerusalem Center. What are the students going to take home as souvenirs?

And where does it end? First you get rid of the facsimiles, then what? The affordable silver rings with hebrew lettering on them? the leather sandals with single toe strap? I want to steer clear of such a slippery slope.

In other words, it's a surreal, hilarious experience to see people here cite science as they lecture about any skepticism over the climate change bandwagon, and then with a straight face engage the LDS pamphlet about translation and historicity of the Book of Abraham. Mormonism is fucking weird.