FAIR papyri translation. Help

As Nibbler says, the subject does get brought up a lot here. I was not and am not especially hung up on the BoA, probably because I had bigger things to worry about. Truth is, I don’t think there is an explanation and the BoA may well be fake. I can live with that, but I understand how others have a more difficult time with it. I am open to the idea that the BoA may have been “inspired” and not translated directly from anything, just as I believe the BoM was (mostly) not directly translated from the plates. Although I see the BoM as more authentic than the BoA, I do not see either as authentic as the Bible. FWIW, I have never been asked in any interview for any calling or going to the temple if I believe either of those volumes to be true.

Thank you for the response. I guess it’s kind of a big deal to me because unlike the gold plates we do not have. The papyri is actual physical evidence. It’s alarming to me how one brushes that to the side.

I appreciate seeing how people deal with this evidence.

It is rumored that one of the next anonymous essays that the church has been putting out about difficult historical issues will be on the BofA. It will probably be one of the last as I can imagine much discussion and “lively debate” among the 15 on what to say about it.

I would love to be a fly on the wall as they discuss Joseph Smith’s translation of facsimile number 2, item number 7. Joseph Smith says it “Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.” The accepted translation by Egyptologist is that it is the god Min, an “ithyphallic god,”. I’ll leave this to the reader to look up ithyphallic in Google to keep this at a G rating 🙂

I admit, it would be interesting to see an article on lds.org about the issues surrounding the BoA. I wouldn’t be surprised to see one given how often people cite issues with the BoA as being the impetus for leaving the church. They’re probably going to want to get out ahead of the issue at some point.

I’m sure the article would say nothing new for a lot of people, I find myself more curious about what conclusions it would draw. I wonder what the conclusion would offer for people that are already aware of all the issues. I also wonder what it might do to the (assuming) majority of the members of the church that know nothing of the issues. Then there’s the rising generation. They’d grow up with the info presented to them by the church. I wonder what it would say to help them reconcile the simple origin explanation in the BoA and the captions to the facsimiles as found in the canonical works.

The already knowledgeable might be looking for nothing short of a “BoA disavowal” complete with an action item to remove the BoA from scripture during the next GC. I suspect we’d end up with something much, much more softball, a light restating of the Ensign article that came out long ago plus a few modifications resulting from having a bit more information available to us now and a lot more time to get their story straight.

SS this year is focused on the OT, the BoA was one of the primary focal points during the first few lessons. I just remained silent when the teacher asked someone from the class to explain the origins of the BoA and the BoMoses and how they differ. An article could make this a point of discussion. Silent no more.

Kinglamoni,

What I’ve finally decided is the only way for me to get around the issues is to redefine how I view revelation. This podcast really helped me and describes what I’m talking about.

I’m still struggling myself with redefining how I have always viewed revelation. It is difficult for me.

Feels like one more mental gymnastics move I am asked to perform.

I would suggest reading the mystics and the midrash tradition within Judaism, if you haven’t done so. Also, channeling “revelation” through contact with objects (including people) has a very long tradition throughout history. It still carries on in the world of the psychics to this day, and it was absolutely acceptable in Joseph’s day and location.

I think it’s bogus in plenty of cases, but I also know personally of at least one person who is hard to dismiss when it comes to that sort of “sight”. The key for me is whether or not Joseph believed he was revealing ancient knowledge, and, based on everything I’ve studied, I think he did. With that as the foundation, I am fine with “inspired fiction” (most likely) or even “revealed historical fiction” (less likely) as possibilities.

I really like what it says, so that helps.

Thanks Ray,

I believe Joseph Smith believed he was receiving revelation. I think he believed he had the first vision and thought he was a prophet. I actually think Joseph Smith was a decent person. Just because a person is delusional does not make them a bad person. Nor is it a knock on their intelligence and creativity. I am not one to say he was not inspired. I hope I am not coming across to hard here in my posts.

I’m giving it my best effort to look at the evidence from all angles and interpretations. The problem is that the conclusion I am coming to is the simplest and most probable. It is not the conclusion of what the church nor FAIR is stating. I am trying to get there really I am but its like some one is telling me the sky is green. When I look at it for my self I see it as blue. I am trying to see it as green to the very best of my ability.

I should mention that I don’t intend the word Delusional as a derogatory term. Any more than saying a person with cancer is derogatory.