Church News Downplays Significance of Book of Abraham

[LA Ute]

Clearly, we wouldn't. But he got careless and was discovered.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

[UtahDan]

Quick, not-carefully-thought-through idea, posted without plowing through this entire thread:

The Book of Moses resulted from Joseph Smith's efforts to enhance and correct the Bible. There is no claim it is based on any manuscript at all - it's pure revelation (and among my favorite set of scriptures). If JS had not claimed that the Book of Abraham was based on those papyri, but had simply said the papyri got him thinking the way the Bible translation did, would we be having this conversation?

I think it is hard to escape, from a believing perspective, that this is in fact exactly what occurred. At least it is for me. Then you just have to sort through why he didn't say that is what occurred.

In fact, it would have been easier if he had simply said that he had a Lehi type vision and that this is what he saw. Again, I wonder whether that is closer to the truth. Could he have been mistaken? Could he have made a choice to put these words in Abraham's mouth?

[LA Ute]

I think it is hard to escape, from a believing perspective, that this is in fact exactly what occurred. At least it is for me. Then you just have to sort through why he didn't say that is what occurred.

In fact, it would have been easier if he had simply said that he had a Lehi type vision and that this is what he saw. Again, I wonder whether that is closer to the truth. Could he have been mistaken? Could he have made a choice to put these words in Abraham's mouth?

[LiveCoug]

No, I do know. I know as surely as I know pigs don't fly. But wait a second. I guess there could always be an exception. I guess until I've inspected every pig who ever lived I can't say for sure no pig could ever fly.

With that caveat, I will say most emphatically that I know there were no golden plates. It is a myth. Believe me, though, that in calling them that I am expressing a high compliment. Those here who know me best will confirm that.

Thanks for that beautiful testimony.

[UtahDan]

You sir, are a radical by association.

[Taq Man]

I'm a bit late to the party but I read a good book on this subject.

"By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles M. Larson

It has full color printouts of the papyrus and gives a straightforward view of how nonbelievers view the events surrounding the BofA its translation and the apologetics.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326"]Amazon.com: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (9780962096327): Charles M. Larson: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51159CBGKCL.@@AMEPARAM@@51159CBGKCL[/ame]

[Taq Man]

The fact that Joseph and the brethren were trying to reverse engineer the egyptian language based on his translation I think that your hypothesis is pretty shaky.

They all believed it was the real deal.

[CardiacCoug]

I don't think Cardiac thought very hard before he posted what he said about the Golden Plates. It was nonsensical, and from a guy who usually makes sense.

Sure, it is very likely that there were no plates. All I was saying is that based on the Abraham papyrus, Joseph didn't literally translate -- he just drew inspiration from the papyrus. So Joseph likely didn't literally translate from plates either in the unlikely event that there were actual plates.

It's unlikely, but there could have been some type of engravings on plates, perhaps fashioned by Joseph himself. It's easy to discount the testimony of the Three Witnesses because they made statements later to the effect that the plates were seen with "spiritual eyes" in a vision rather than in a conventional way of seeing things. But it seems like the Eight Witnesses did actually see some type of plates in a typical, normal way. There could have been some actual plates, even if as part of a "hoax" -- you claiming to have knowledge that there were no plates is an interesting leap of faith.

[Viking]

Quick, not-carefully-thought-through idea, posted without plowing through this entire thread:

The Book of Moses resulted from Joseph Smith's efforts to enhance and correct the Bible. There is no claim it is based on any manuscript at all - it's pure revelation (and among my favorite set of scriptures). If JS had not claimed that the Book of Abraham was based on those papyri, but had simply said the papyri got him thinking the way the Bible translation did, would we be having this conversation?

My sincere take on JS is that he could very well have been a prophet, seen god, etc., but that he was the consummate BSer and took a lot of things waaayyy too far. Too big for his britches, as we'd say in Texas.

It's impossible to disprove him as a prophet just as it is impossible to prove that he was, absent some videotape of two heavenly beings in a grove, 150 pounds of original, engraved ancient gold plates, and a signed affadavit from deity stating it's ok to send a man on a mission, then marry his wife (ok, that last one isn't necessary...good on ya, Joe!).

[LA Ute]

The fact that Joseph and the brethren were trying to reverse engineer the egyptian language based on his translation I think that your hypothesis is pretty shaky.

They all believed it was the real deal.

Just can't get . . . past . . . that . . . avatar of yours . . . . Sorry. Kinda hurts your credibility.

[SeattleUte]

Just can't get . . . past . . . that . . . avatar of yours . . . . Sorry. Kinda hurts your credibility.

LOL. This is pretty ironic.

[Viking]

LOL. This is pretty ironic.

+1 well done

[LA Ute]

LOL. This is pretty ironic.

If you are referring to my own avatars, stay tuned, I've only just begun.

[UtahDan]

The fact that Joseph and the brethren were trying to reverse engineer the egyptian language based on his translation I think that your hypothesis is pretty shaky.

They all believed it was the real deal.

Which hypothesis are you referring to? LA was agreeing with me and I have conceded that I don't think it was the "real deal" and have left the question open as to why Joseph did and whether he did. From a believers perspective it doesn't preclude the idea that it was inspired, even if Joseph didn't realize it was not authentic or even he did realize that and for whatever reason (maybe not a good one) decided to put those words in Abraham's mouth.

[Taq Man]

Which hypothesis are you referring to? LA was agreeing with me and I have conceded that I don't think it was the "real deal" and have left the question open as to why Joseph did and whether he did. From a believers perspective it doesn't preclude the idea that it was inspired, even if Joseph didn't realize it was not authentic or even he did realize that and for whatever reason (maybe not a good one) decided to put those words in Abraham's mouth.

This one.

"In fact, it would have been easier if he had simply said that he had a Lehi type vision and that this is what he saw. Again, I wonder whether that is closer to the truth. Could he have been mistaken? Could he have made a choice to put these words in Abraham's mouth? "

There are 2 sticky parts. The first is where he says it was actually written by Abraham. Much of the hieroglyphs are in a short hand version that the egyptians developed way after Abrahams time. Some of that shorthand is on one of the facsimiles that Joseph claims Abraham drew. Again it is a language that did not exist in the time of Abraham.

The second sticky part is that Josephs scribe wrote down translation notes in Josephs journal. It seems a bit of a stretch to think that they would try to Rosetta stone the papyrus with Joseph's translation if they weren't all completly certain it was a translation and not a revelation.