The Book of Abraham

HI Deepthinker,

My current view of the BofA is this:

1) JS had no ability to read or translate ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics into English. I do not believe he had any training to do so. I do not believe God taught him how to do so.

2) I do not believe the BofA is contained within the Egyptian papyri. It doesn’t make any sense that Pagans would preserve (make copies of) such a record and bury it with their dead.

– However, I am sympathetic to the view that Coptic Jews may have kept such a record. If there were such a papyri, it no longer exists and it was not what JS thought he was translating.

3) The Facsimiles are Egyptian. They should be removed from the LDS scriptures.

4) IF the BofA is inspired, the ONLY way that could be true is if it was revealed to JS. The revealed English translation would have had to come from the original writings of Abraham and would have nothing to do with the papyri we have. Similarly, the Facsimiles that Abraham made would have nothing to do with the Egyptian Facsimiles we have either. I can accept the BofA may be true (I still don’t know it is) under these circumstances. However, this is a rather radical change from how the BofA is viewed today in the LDS Church.

Tobin

“The Book of Abraham” – This thread has 74 comments: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=501&hilit=Book+of+Abraham

“The Lost Book of Abraham” – This thread has 78 comments: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2105&hilit=Book+of+Abraham

“Translation” – This thread has 38 comments: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3372&hilit=Book+of+Abraham

Feel free to read these threads and bump any or all of them up for further discussion by commenting on it/them. There is some REALLY good stuff in the comments.

I believe the BofA is 19th century pseudepigrapha–i.e., an inspired story about Abraham written by a 19th century mystic. I don’t think Joseph knew anything about hieroglyphics, Egyptian culture, history, or religious beliefs. I think he saw the papyri, and like a jazz musician, “riffed” on the themes he saw and knew from the Biblical record. I am becoming an amateur Egyptologist. The more I learn about Ancient Egyptian language, writing systems, history, religious beliefs, and practices, the more uncomfortable I am with the party line about the BofA. If it weren’t for the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the facsimiles, I might tend more toward literal belief, but as it is, I am currently leaning toward the ‘inspired literature’ interpretation.

The fact that gets me the most is that all of the mental gymnastics set forth by the apologists are only necessary if you accept the claim “Joseph Smith is a true prophet” as absolutely true. In order to preserve the veracity of that statement, we find ourselves throwing out all the things he said and claimed in order to make them fit with present knowledge.

…

If we are going to examine the evidence rationally, and with an open mind, then we have to be willing to entertain the notion that Joseph may not have been a prophet afterall. In which case, he was a highly imaginative person who could whip out a fantastic story.

Or, we can believe he was a prophet and perhaps really did experience the first vision and perhaps really was inspired to translate the BoM, but some, or much, of the other stuff was made up. There are other threads here where that has been discussed – I don’t believe regarding JS as a prophet is an all or nothing situation. I do admit he could have made it all up if he had a brilliant intellect and imagination, but it’s also possible some of it is true/correct. FWIW, in my own rebuilding of faith I have gone the all or nothing route with the church, but there seems to be enough “real doctrine” to help me realize that some of it could actually be correct while it doesn’t all have to be correct. With me it is likewise for JS and the BoM. I have rejected the PoGP, but nevertheless regard parts of it as good, moral teaching with some correct principles.

Thanks for this discussion.

I remember the first time I realized that the church leadership were just men who woke up and put pants on in the morning, just like the rest of us. It was an odd experience, but still one to remember.

This was well before I had my falling out with the “spirit”. It is good to hear others complete and agree with my thoughts on the prophets, current and old. Noah was in a drunken sumper when he got inspirations. Kind of weird I know. Every once in a while I will see a preacher drink alcohol and I twinge, but that is from many years of being wired/programmed to think that church leadership is supposed to be holier than me. I don’t think that was the intention, but more a byproduct of how the gospel is taught.

This has helped as when I do the temple recommend interview I get itchy trying to say yes to the “do you believe {current prophet} is a prophet of god” question. I reasonably could answer yes, but I always had that little thought back there that said he wasn’t a perfect prophet. Hah, typing that makes me think I’m off my rocker, but I do know better.

All that said, I’m with the above that these are men who, if we met them we would be glad to learn from them, but they are men nonetheless.

HI Deepthinker,

My current view of the BofA is this:

1) JS had no ability to read or translate ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics into English. I do not believe he had any training to do so. I do not believe God taught him how to do so.

2) I do not believe the BofA is contained within the Egyptian papyri. It doesn’t make any sense that Pagans would preserve (make copies of) such a record and bury it with their dead.

– However, I am sympathetic to the view that Coptic Jews may have kept such a record. If there were such a papyri, it no longer exists and it was not what JS thought he was translating.

3) The Facsimiles are Egyptian. They should be removed from the LDS scriptures.

4) IF the BofA is inspired, the ONLY way that could be true is if it was revealed to JS. The revealed English translation would have had to come from the original writings of Abraham and would have nothing to do with the papyri we have. Similarly, the Facsimiles that Abraham made would have nothing to do with the Egyptian Facsimiles we have either. I can accept the BofA may be true (I still don’t know it is) under these circumstances. However, this is a rather radical change from how the BofA is viewed today in the LDS Church.

Tobin

Thanks Tobin, I can agree with what you’re saying. You’ve provided a much better summary than some of the other theories put out there by some apologists. Of course, as you stated, this summary is much different from the mainstream LDS belief.

I have always had an issue with how some apologists have tried to use anything that may remotely resemble a link between the facsimile translations of Joseph Smith and the generally accepted Egyptologist translation. I think many of those attempts were really damaging to me when I read through them; they were stretching the truth so that they could still accept Joseph Smith as someone who could translate Egyptian.

It seems some apologists are doing more harm than good on this subject. For me, I can more easily accept what you’ve summarized and at least view the actual text of the BoA as inspired.

Thanks for doing some of my homework, Ray.

No problem. It’s what I do and how my brain works. I have a weird ability to remember posts from long ago, whether they are here, on my own blog or somewhere else. I can’t remember people’s names very well, but I can remember that they wrote something five years ago. :wtf:

It’s a gift – and a curse.