tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post6186806413074450618..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: A Gift From an Early "Anti-Mormon" Attack on the Book of Abraham: Clear Evidence About the Source of Joseph's TranslationJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17026128074510646582021-04-26T18:03:25.655-05:002021-04-26T18:03:25.655-05:00I love how the commenters want to totally avoid th...I love how the commenters want to totally avoid the topic and the evidence presented that strongly supports the view that those who have contended that JS depended on the KEP and EAG are the basis of the source of the BofA are just wrong.Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042652787154610375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6494214136169188182021-01-22T12:30:44.821-06:002021-01-22T12:30:44.821-06:00Anon 2:30 writes that People in the Middle East bu...Anon 2:30 writes that <i>People in the Middle East burned ancient papyrus for fires to be able to cook and for warmth.... They know they are burning old papers/history or whatever you want to call it.</i><br /><br />Good grief. Even if this were true, it wouldn't mean that people were burning their religious texts. People might have burned all kinds of things, such as old tax records and what have you, but I'll bet they weren't burning copies of the Quran. If I needed to I'd be happy to burn 99 percent of my old files, but that doesn't mean I'd burn the family Bible or my marriage certificate.<br /><br />Anon 2:30 compounds their illogic by reminding us that <i>countries who conquer other countries destroy the history and culture of the conquered country... they didn't care about preserving anything.... So to say "non- modern" people knew to preserve historical or ancient texts/ writings / heiroglyphics / art / etc is not logical.</i><br /><br />But so what? The way that conquerors treat the artifacts of the people they conquer tells us nothing about how we might expect people to handle their <i>own</i> religious artifacts. The fact that the Taliban destroyed ancient Buddhist statues doesn't mean they would destroy an ancient copy of the Quran.<br /><br />Jeff, from the Historical Introduction to the Joseph Smith Papers Project, here's a bit of evidence that at least some 19th-century Mormons <i>did</i> value the Church's religious artifacts:<br /><br />"Following the 1837 publication, Cowdery retained possession of the [Book of Mormon] manuscript. Before he died in early 1850 in Missouri, Cowdery charged David Whitmer, his fellow Book of Mormon witness and brother-in-law, with the safekeeping of the manuscript. Many of those who believed in the miraculous origins of the Book of Mormon sought Whitmer out, hoping to view the manuscript. On such occasions, Whitmer confirmed his written testimony of the book’s authenticity, which had been published with the book."<br /><br />See <a href="https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-august-1829-circa-january-1830/1#historical-intro" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25371129005503599242021-01-22T12:19:12.592-06:002021-01-22T12:19:12.592-06:00OK, my apologies -- I forgot that Abel Combs was t...OK, my apologies -- I forgot that Abel Combs was the one who sold the papyri to the museum. Regardless of who bought them from Emma, I think from her perspective it was reasonable for Emma to sell the papyri, though by our standards and with hindsight regarding their destruction in the Great Chicago Fire, I think we can all agree that it would have been much better to see that they went to scholars who would treat them with care, copy or photograph them, and ensure that they were carefully preserved in a less flammable edifice. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65644191894948505282021-01-21T23:56:01.331-06:002021-01-21T23:56:01.331-06:00Anonymous at 2:30, you should provide evidence for...Anonymous at 2:30, you should provide evidence for claims like the ones you just made. I don't believe you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19005918485274714252021-01-21T14:30:14.195-06:002021-01-21T14:30:14.195-06:00Example: People in the Middle East burned ancien...Example: People in the Middle East burned ancient papyrus for fires to be able to cook and for warmth. This has gone on for decades and decades and decades through today. They know they are burning old papers/history or whatever you want to call it. They are trying to survive...they don't care about preserving anything except to survive.<br /><br />Also countries who conquer other countries destroy the history and culture of the conquered country... they didn't care about preserving anything. ( Like what is happening in the USA and Western world right now)<br />The Taliban and ISIS destroying everything in their path not related to Islam. Spanish Conquistadors destroying everything they could. <br />Been happening since the beginning of time.<br /><br />So to say "non- modern" people knew to preserve historical or ancient texts/ writings / heiroglyphics / art / etc is not logical. <br /><br />Yes, throughout history a few people who saw the importance of preserving artifacts / historical documents existed, they had amazing foresight, and did what they could. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22381045613487235292021-01-13T20:17:21.658-06:002021-01-13T20:17:21.658-06:00Heh. Heh. Hoosiernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50376167440718081692021-01-13T17:30:25.746-06:002021-01-13T17:30:25.746-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58352490188046807682021-01-13T11:36:19.286-06:002021-01-13T11:36:19.286-06:00Anon @ 1:54 Your logical fallacies are: non sequit...Anon @ 1:54 Your logical fallacies are: non sequitur as well as argumentum ad ridiculum with a hefty dose of ad hominem for good measure.<br /><br />Looks like Brigham is in a damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn't situation with you, so your imposition of the catch-22 inclines me to not care. Hoosiernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35585153613419894692021-01-13T01:54:56.979-06:002021-01-13T01:54:56.979-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72001882656219227442021-01-12T23:57:19.806-06:002021-01-12T23:57:19.806-06:00Anon @ 2:48 is right. It would have been easier t...Anon @ 2:48 is right. It would have been easier to do away with the fragments. It would have been even easier to refuse to create the KEP and other documents and instead just run the Book of Abraham text off like he did with the Book of Mormon. To me, the KEP is a riddle, but it's very existence inclines me to believe that opportunistic fraud is not an explanation. Something like Samuel Morris Brown's thinking or a form of textual glossalalia is more likely. <br />You don't even need to believe in Joseph Smith's prophecy to believe in glossalalia, which is a concrete and observed phenomenon whatever the ultimate explanation may be. <br /><br />OK @ 11:55 - You're oversimplifying the situation. Joseph Smith Jr. had been the trustee-in-trust of the Church, which meant that the lines between his property and the Church’s property were blurred. That was one of the reasons why Emma and Brigham devolved into antagonism so fast: they disagreed as to which properties were Joseph’s (and therefore Emma’s) and which belonged to the Church. Brigham didn’t take the papyri because he didn’t have the legal authority to do so, or at least he didn’t have the time to thoroughly assert the Church’s rights to the papyri because, you know, he was supervising an exodus and building a civilization halfway across a continent. <br />The argument that “Brigham Young didn’t fight for the papyri so he must have not believed in them” is not convincing to start with, and it gets even less so when you consider the actual conditions under which Brigham and Emma were operating. <br />Also, to be fair, the Book of Mormon authors were writing a record that represented their only chance at being remembered or surviving in any meaningful sense. The pathos is a little different, enough to complicate your case. Preserving your own memory was always important in ancient cultures, as opposed to more academic historiography which is a new innovation. <br />Hoosiernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21432326838588739902021-01-12T19:13:30.410-06:002021-01-12T19:13:30.410-06:00Your argument is that Joseph didn’t translate the ...Your argument is that Joseph didn’t translate the parts that were filled in by the illustrator and thus it is true vs the parts he translated that have been shown to be translated incorrectly and so his text isn’t a translation but at best inspiredBrianGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11883278789876067947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15689974668744070932021-01-12T14:50:22.689-06:002021-01-12T14:50:22.689-06:00I can see the argument for the thought that once, ...I can see the argument for the thought that once, translated, the original artifacts weren't as useful anymore. I'm not sure that 19th century Americans were particularly into relics and their preservation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15036216621357274792021-01-12T14:48:41.864-06:002021-01-12T14:48:41.864-06:00An easier solution would have been to destroy them...An easier solution would have been to destroy them, then claim they were taken back into heaven by Abraham. :^)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75140153219376691312021-01-12T11:55:59.457-06:002021-01-12T11:55:59.457-06:00Seriously, Jeff? You want us to believe that only ...Seriously, Jeff? You want us to believe that only moderns like us believe in the importance of preserving ancient records? <br /><br />Have you forgotten that the importance of preserving ancient records is a prominent theme in the Book of Mormon itself? <br /><br />To see what I'm getting at, just compare the custodial diligence of the prophets Mormon and Moroni (who kept the plates safe through tumultuous wars) to the carelessness of the prophet Brigham Young, who, in the dozen or so years after Joseph's assassination, never managed to send out a delegation to secure the Book of Abraham for posterity.<br /><br />Also, of course, Emma did not sell "the bulk of the collection to a museum in St. Louis." She sold the papyri to Abel Combs, a guy just passing through town, a representative of that frontier type noted for its honesty and sober devotion to posterity, the traveling salesman. This is hardly, as you put it, "one of the wisest things she could have done to give the documents a chance to benefit scholarship."<br /><br />No doubt Emma was bitter about the Church and hard up for money. But these are just more reasons not to leave such supposedly precious artifacts in her possession.<br /><br />Anyway, to recap:<br /><br />The most likely explanation for the careless handling of the papyri is not the tumult of the times or the difficulties of travel. Salt Lake City is not Mars; it would not have been so hard to send a delegation to Nauvoo with the aim of securing the papyri.<br /><br />Nor is the most likely explanation the lack of any example of the value of preserving ancient documents. Such examples abound in the Book of Mormon.<br /><br />Nor is the most likely explanation Emma's supposed desire to find a better home for the papyri in a museum. She sold them to a traveling salesman.<br /><br />What <i>is</i> the most likely explanation? We shouldn't rule out the possibility that leaders like Brigham devalued this material <i>because they never believed in its authenticity in the first place</i>. To put it a little too bluntly, they were in on the con.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77435757661272757062021-01-12T08:50:34.086-06:002021-01-12T08:50:34.086-06:00Jeff @12:20
But then you fall into the trap of ac...Jeff @12:20<br /><br />But then you fall into the trap of accepting the text as midrash, and being something other than it claims to be (a text written by Abraham). What follows then is the possibility that Joseph created the midrash himself, which theory has been accepted by the church officially as a plausible explanation for the book. What that then means is there is no real relevance to your original post, since there is no direct relationship between the text on the papyri and the text which was produced by Joseph.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3452490937575879922021-01-12T07:45:03.507-06:002021-01-12T07:45:03.507-06:00OK, your comments remind me of how easy it is to f...OK, your comments remind me of how easy it is to fall into the trap of presentism, where we rely on present knowledge and values to judge those of the past. Here your knowledge of the very modern fields of archaeology, the modern discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the knowledge from modern Egyptology that the Egyptian papyri Joseph had were very unusual (especially if they contained a Book of Abraham), along with the healthy respect of modern academics for ancient artifacts, are used to condemn the Church for its benighted handling of the papyri. <br /><br />Perhaps you forget that the Church faced a few minor challenges in Nauvoo, such as the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and the rage of very trendy (for their day) woke mobs driving the Saints out of their homes during a brutally cold winter to flee for their lives. The fine points of negotiating the terms of a good documents preservation policy with Emma Smith seem to have slipped through the cracks, perhaps because the short-sighted leaders at the time were more focused on not being shot and trying to make sure they didn't freeze to death or fall through the ice of the Mississippi River as they crossed it. <br /><br />Emma, lacking your modern appreciation of the importance of archaeology, Egyptology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., stayed behind and had children to raise and bills to pay. She was not "the Church" that you so love to denounce. She was a mother in poverty and felt the Church had left her rather than the other way around. She had some old papyri in a drawer. What was she supposed to do? Recall also that FedEx and UPS weren't all that reliable back then, so trying to overnight the documents to Church headquarters, if she had been feeling generous and if anyone there recognized how important those documents would be in our day, might have just resulted in accelerating the decay of documents already falling apart or even in their complete loss. <br /><br />Actually, selling the bulk of the collection to a museum in St. Louis seems like one of the wisest things she could have done to give the documents a chance to benefit scholarship. It's a shame they would later be transferred to a museum in Chicago and apparently burned in the Great Chicago Fire, along with what may have been the long scroll Joseph used to translate the Book of Abraham. "How convenient," you'll say, but that wasn't by design. At least not the Church's design nor Emma's. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54082428533071109202021-01-12T07:21:08.555-06:002021-01-12T07:21:08.555-06:00Anon@3:50, there was one place in ancient Egypt th...Anon@3:50, there was one place in ancient Egypt that for a brief time showed remarkable interest in Jewish lore. That place was Thebes around 100 BC plus or minus a century. If there was a Jewish Book of Abraham text written in Egyptian and adapting Egyptian lore and figures, it would have most likely come from that time and place -- which very coincidentally corresponds with the time and place of the papyri obtained by Joseph Smith. The owner of the papyri, Hor, was an ancient priest who would have been the right person in the right time and place to have access to and interest in something like the Book of Abraham -- if it existed, of course. Part of the access that Egypt had to Jewish lore came from Jewish colonies in Egypt (e.g, Elephantine and others). <br /><br />Key theories related to the Book of Abraham hold that it was a Jewish text that had been converted into Egyptian, either by a Jewish redactor or by an Egyptian scribe/priest who was fascinated with and familiar with Jewish lore. Understanding of the Book of Abraham facsimiles must begin with considering the possibility that classic Egyptian themes have been adapted to tell a Jewish story. So Facsimile 1, while it may look like a classic image associated with mummification, should be considered differently. In fact, look, the person isn't dead, but very much alive. His leg and hands are up as if trying to escape from the altar. In fact, his posture is exactly the same as that of the Egyptian hieroglyph that means prayer or supplication, a perfect way to adapt a funerary scene to Abraham's tale of praying on the altar for deliverance from a priest about to kill him. What seems ordinary at first glance actually has unusual elements that make sense as a way to show part of Abraham's story using by adapting a classic Egyptian vignette. For all the facsimiles, the question is not what did this mean in classic Egyptian lore, but how could this have been adapted for the Book of Abraham.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86684002454618194702021-01-12T00:20:03.845-06:002021-01-12T00:20:03.845-06:00It is interesting to note that none of the comment...It is interesting to note that none of the comments thus far have addressed the merits or possible errors in Jeff's post.Glenn Thigpenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16289698106336334148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66699272293771944992021-01-11T17:20:09.979-06:002021-01-11T17:20:09.979-06:00Let's assume that the papyri purchased by Smit...Let's assume that the papyri purchased by Smith, or some portion of them, are everything Smith claimed them to be. That would mean the Church had in its possession the only extant copy of an incredibly important and otherwise completely unattested ancient text, an absolute treasure on the order of the Dead Sea scrolls.<br /><br />So why did the Church let this incredibly valuable artifact slip away? We know very little about how the papyri were handled before Emma sold them off in 1856, but what we do know gives us no evidence they were treated with the reverence one would expect from people who genuinely believed them to be the words of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus.<br /><br />So what gives? Is it possible the papyri were so cavalierly handled because the people handling them didn't really believe in their authenticity?<br /><br />Makes you wonder.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79554394723152464212021-01-11T16:48:04.526-06:002021-01-11T16:48:04.526-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69305382381943656872021-01-11T15:50:08.332-06:002021-01-11T15:50:08.332-06:00“Egyptologists are experts on how Ancient Egyptian...“Egyptologists are experts on how Ancient Egyptians would interpret things, they aren't experts on how ancient jews would interpret the same things.”<br /><br />This seems nonsensical. Are you saying ancient Jews would choose to write in Egyptian, then provide their own meanings for the writings they produced? Are there other examples showing this was a common practice? Why not just write in Hebrew?<br /><br />Also, is there any evidence that the text of the papyri was written by a Hebrew and not an Egyptian?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36110259729763620682021-01-11T15:45:24.080-06:002021-01-11T15:45:24.080-06:00Jeff is a good apologist. He ignores evidence that...Jeff is a good apologist. He ignores evidence that he can’t explain away. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81675418540793042482021-01-11T11:13:03.548-06:002021-01-11T11:13:03.548-06:00Egyptologists are experts on how Ancient Egyptians...Egyptologists are experts on how Ancient Egyptians would interpret things, they aren't experts on how ancient jews would interpret the same things.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09049247336275696623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54070687170260940372021-01-11T07:10:06.770-06:002021-01-11T07:10:06.770-06:00How do you explain that the explanations given for...How do you explain that the explanations given for each facsimile don’t match any Egyptologist translation of those sections? I am afraid that even the church essays suggest he didn’t really translate an ancient text, but was inspired by one that has nothing to do with Abraham. It is much easier to show that it is pseudonymous writings by Joseph, like the book of Moses, than actually an ancient text. If you are inspired by it, great. But these convoluted arguments to me don’t prove anything. BrianGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11883278789876067947noreply@blogger.com