Secrets of the Book of Abraham

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

SamBee wrote:

I almost wish it had been channeled a la Book of Moses, or wish that the source material was gone like the Book of Mormon.

I thought there was evidence that the source material IS gone. That what we currently have is a few scraps, and not nearly as much as was described by the people that saw what was purchased from Mr. Chandler.

HiJolly

Some of it, but what we do have, are papyri which match closely the facsimiles in the POGP, plus “idiosyncrasies” where the holes in these papyri are. There’s simply no way I can see that stuff being connected with the text.

I agree, SamBee. I know there is much discussion about the KEP, etc. going on with apologists (particularly over at the MA&D Board), but I think the evidence is much simpler than they make it. Like you said, the (mistaken) filling in of the jackal head where the papyri was missing, and other gross misinterpretations of what WAS there, along with the history of what was going on with the church at the time, and the simple statement, “written by the hand of Abraham” when it clearly wasn’t…all lead to the simple conclusion that it was produced by Joseph as a needed now scripture, and had nothing to do with Abraham. I think there are many who “need” it to be a true translation that they are blinded by good evidence that shows otherwise.

Then when you look at the Kinderhook plates’ false analysis, his (secret) dealings with polygamy, polyandry, the Nauvoo Expositor destruction, his money-digging, and the recent word-print evidence of the origins of the BoM by Criddle et al, etc., I find Joseph’s claims highly suspicious.

BUT, I find the same kind of questionable beginnings in most religions I’ve studied, and find the church today to be quite helpful in many ways to so many around the world, that I like the concepts we discuss here of how to Stay LDS despite these things.

But I could be wrong…

[Anonymous]

The only way I can rationalize it, is if I see the papyri as an inspiration/touchstone, rather than the source. But even then…

While Ancient Egyptian isn’t as well understood as, say, Ancient Greek,* we now have more than enough knowledge of hieroglyphics to say that the keys to the papyri in the facsimiles are nothing to do with the source writing.

* Although much better than Amerindian writing systems AFAIK.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

The only way I can rationalize it, is if I see the papyri as an inspiration/touchstone, rather than the source. But even then…

While Ancient Egyptian isn’t as well understood as, say, Ancient Greek,* we now have more than enough knowledge of hieroglyphics to say that the keys to the papyri in the facsimiles are nothing to do with the source writing.

* Although much better than Amerindian writing systems AFAIK.

Yes, the touchstone theory is certainly possible. Again, from my perspective, there are too many other indications in Joseph’s life that he was quite good at “fooling” people that it seems quite intentional.

There is the pious fraud theory, but even then…seems too suspicious IMO.

But I could be wrong….

[Anonymous]

Rix, not to get too off topic, but we had a very interesting discussion on the Criddle study. You might want to check it out. I don’t put very much faith on wordprint studies at all–whether from BYU or Stanford. In brief, 2 British statisticians discredit all wordprint studies.

Quote:

Stanley Fish and Roland Barthes believe the whole concept of authorship is a flawed concept.

See http://mormonmatters.org/2010/03/06/dueling-wordprint-studies/

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

Rix, not to get too off topic, but we had a very interesting discussion on the Criddle study. You might want to check it out. I don’t put very much faith on wordprint studies at all–whether from BYU or Stanford. In brief, 2 British statisticians discredit all wordprint studies.

Quote:

Stanley Fish and Roland Barthes believe the whole concept of authorship is a flawed concept.

See http://mormonmatters.org/2010/03/06/dueling-wordprint-studies/

Yes, I know it’s got its flaws (Criddle has done some more work since the original studies that supports the work though), but the over-whelming evidence of the timeline of Spalding, Rigdon’s associations and the Campbellite similarities, the available witnesses, the extensive work by Uncle Dale (Broadhurst), etc…it all fits too well for me. Add that to the significant problems with the BoA, Kinderhook plates…the “credibility” of Joseph’s story is too suspicious. But I could be wrong.

But as I said earlier, despite Joseph’s challenges, we have a modern church with (mostly) sincere leaders and a great and helpful organization for many people. I’m okay with the foundational claims not being true, even though many are not.

[Author]

Posts