Church News Downplays Significance of Book of Abraham

[Fiyero]

It's been long prophesied that our faith would be sorely tested in the latter days. In this age of mass knowledge available at our fingertips, it's no-freaking-wonder. However, doesn't it follow that the amount of testing that a person goes through will depend on the amount of stock that he places on minute, sign-seeking, trivial matters.

Again, by their fruits ye shall know them.

[scottie]

...

Again, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Do you keep saying this in reference to Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham?

[SeattleUte]

SU what type of law do you practice? I bet you are a damn good attorney (zero sarcasm or TIC implied) you keep up a valiant fight for what you believe in, regardless of the mounting evidence placed in front of you.

Do you happen to know Jeff Coopersmith, in Seattle? If so go tell me what type of Mercedes he drives since I'm sure I paid for it.

Commercial litigation.

I've heard of him but don't know him or what kind of care he drives; I do some health care law.

[Solon]

Gee's a legitimate scholar, but he has an agenda - that agenda is to avoid professional embarrassment at claiming the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri. I'm not saying that Joseph Smith made it up, but I am saying that there's no way he looked at hieroglyphs and "translated" them into today's Pearl of Great Price text the same way that my boss, Don Redford translates an inscription he digs up in Mendes.

[Solon]

The papyrus gives us a glimpse of what may have happened had the golden plates ended up in a museum, with experts spending decades disagreeing on what the various markings represented.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

It's been long prophesied that our faith would be sorely tested in the latter days. In this age of mass knowledge available at our fingertips, it's no-freaking-wonder. However, doesn't it follow that the amount of testing that a person goes through will depend on the amount of stock that he places on minute, sign-seeking, trivial matters.

Again, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Do you keep saying this in reference to Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham?

I have the same question as scottie. Fiyero, what are you getting at? I'm not sure The Book of Abraham is the kind of fruit the church would like to be known by.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I have the same question as scottie. Fiyero, what are you getting at? I'm not sure The Book of Abraham is the kind of fruit the church would like to be known by.

I'll third that question and add polygamy to that list(thus the gentleman's rule is obeyed)

[All-American]

I'll third that question and add polygamy to that list(thus the gentleman's rule is obeyed)

I'm pretty sure he's just trying to get as many pictures of Elisha Cuthbert up as possible.

Fight on, Fiyero.

[SeattleUte]

The Book of Abraham is also the scriptural source cited for the priesthood ban.

[All-American]

The Book of Abraham is also the scriptural source cited for the priesthood ban.

aaaaaaaaaand there it is.

We really need to start keeping track of the average number of posts in a religious thread before the priesthood ban comes up.

[Art Vandelay]

Gee's a legitimate scholar, but he has an agenda - that agenda is to avoid professional embarrassment at claiming the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri. I'm not saying that Joseph Smith made it up, but I am saying that there's no way he looked at hieroglyphs and "translated" them into today's Pearl of Great Price text the same way that my boss, Don Redford translates an inscription he digs up in Mendes.

What have been the results of non-LDS translations of the papyri?

I'm also curious what is your (Solon) area of study?

[TripletDaddy]

What have been the results of non-LDS translations of the papyri?

I'm also curious what is your (Solon) area of study?

basically, the same as LDS study.....that the scrolls are funerary texts and that when translated, do not convey the text that Joseph claims that they convey. It is also held that these were not written by the hand of Abraham.

I think the issues surrounding the BoA are even less known than the head in the hat.

[SeattleUte]

aaaaaaaaaand there it is.

We really need to start keeping track of the average number of posts in a religious thread before the priesthood ban comes up.

Well, this time it's totally legitimate, since poeple are talking about whether this strange little "book" is a good or bad fruit. It's significant that the BoA was in fact the scriptural support cited for the priesthood ban. In that regard, it's pretty clear: Pharaoh was cursed as to the priesthood because he was black (I'm going from memory).

[All-American]

basically, the same as LDS study.....that the scrolls are funerary texts and that when translated, do not convey the text that Joseph claims that they convey. It is also held that these were not written by the hand of Abraham.

I think the issues surrounding the BoA are even less known than the head in the hat.

Although, it should be noted that we do not have the vast majority of the scroll.

The story goes something along these lines. Due to the age of the scrolls, frequent rolling and unrolling caused some damages, especially along the edges of the scrolls. The method used to preserve the scrolls was to cut off the deteriorating edges and mount them. The main part of the scroll was destroyed in a museum during the Chicago fire a few years after the Nauvoo period. The deteriorating edge was rediscovered in the 1960's or so, having been gifted along the way. Dr. Gee (aka the Angel of Death) believes that the eleven extant fragments came from two of the original five scrolls of which Joseph had possession, therefore constituting about one eighth of the original papyri. We don't, for example, have any scroll with red and black lettering, though Oliver Cowdery so described one of the scrolls.

This page has an interview with the curator of the Met that talks about the fragments:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/BOA_4.html

[All-American]

Well, this time it's totally legitimate, since poeple are talking about whether this strange little "book" is a good or bad fruit. It's significant that the BoA was in fact the scriptural support cited for the priesthood ban. In that regard, it's pretty clear: Pharaoh was cursed as to the priesthood because he was black (I'm going from memory).

It is more legitimate than the Dr. Death reference, yes.

[Fiyero]

I have the same question as scottie. Fiyero, what are you getting at? I'm not sure The Book of Abraham is the kind of fruit the church would like to be known by.

What I mean is what does it matter whether the BOA came about from a seer stone, spectacles held by a ribbon, or a portable hieroglyphic? This should be filed in the same category as the plates that were translated while Joseph's face was in a hat, then witnessed by a group of people named Smith before being taken by an angel to Kolob for safekeeping.

The actual texts of Abraham 3, Alma 30 and so forth is where one's concern should be. Those are the fruits of Joseph Smith. The temple instruction. The doctrines and covenants. Testimony sealed by blood.