Talk:Book of Abraham/Archive 1

Translation
FYI - Smith did not translate all of the Papyrus purchased. He translated a relatively small portion of what was avaible. Parts of the book of dead were in the collection, but not sure if he even attempted to translate any of it, besides some light shed on the Hypocephalus included.


 * Yes, I know that. I suppose we should make it clearer that both "sides" acknowledge this, but differ in their thoughts concerning whether the document was translated or mistranslated. -- Someone else 23:44, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Great edits. They captured what I couldn't. My father was involved in the analysis of the papyrus when they were bought back by the Church, and I have some photographs of what is left. Not much, but very interesting. Interesting how many names and places and concepts JS got right - even if one doesn't accept him as a prophet.Visorstuff

Nonsense
I removed the following, as it makes no sense - not only is the sentence structures messed up, but it makes illogical and uneducated claims.


 * The opening of the book was claim to be next to the scene reproduced in the facimilies, translated by Smith as, "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence." The scene was amoung the fragments discovered, and the nearby text reads, "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons -- and likewise Osiris Hor, justified, born to Tikhebyt, justified -- after his arms have been placed on his heart and the breathing permit (which Isis made and has writing on its inside and outside) has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of the mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book was copied will breath forever and ever as the bas of the gods do."

Again, to the point made above under the translation heading, the bulk of the writing available on the papyrus that Smith translated the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph from is not available as it was likely destroyed. No one knows where the translation above mentioned came from and therefore the point above makes no sense. Read the scholarly research on teh topic, rather than the sensation anti-Mormon material and it will make sense to whomever wrote this jibberish. -Visorstuff 00:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It certainly has become ungrammatical, but it is not nonsense. The defense of Mormon apologists (against the claim that Smith mistranslated the text) is that the text that still exists is part of the papyrus that was not translated: that is, we cannot identify any part of the extant papyrus that was translated, and that a translation of the extant text that does not match Smith's work therefore doesn't prove anything. The argument fails if we can identify some portion of the extant text as having been translated by Smith (because none of the translation of the extant papyri have anything to do with the Book of Abraham). As it works out, the opening passage of the Book of Abraham can be identified on the right hand side of the "Small Sensen" papyrus (Papyrus Joseph Smith XI). Joseph Smith I and XI were once a single piece, as shown by a comparison of their edges by Dr. Klaus Baer of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The Egyptian characters drawn in the margins of the ten-page Manuscript No. 1 (of the Book of Abraham), in the handwriting of the scribes of Joseph Smith match the characters on the first lines of the Small Sensen papyrus, and continue to match in Manuscripts No. 2 & 3 (manuscript No. 4 has no Eqyptian characters drawn in). A single Egyptian character is often translated by Smith as a complete verse or two of the Book of Abraham. So it is plain what the characters translated as "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence...." come from: they are from Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, which is in fact a Book of Breathing from the first century AD, and can be translated as "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of..." etc. The Egyptian character for "the" is translated by Smith as verse 11 of the Book of Abraham, etc. - Nunh-huh 00:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe you are taking this from the Tanner's work - rather than Charles Larson's work? In either case, both are Anti-Mormons.


 * Here is an excerpt from Larson's work about the topic:


 * Of the eleven papyri fragments, only one at first glance had any apparent connection to the Book of Abraham (that is, the original from which Facsimile No. 1 was copied). But now, with attention drawn to the "Small Sensen" papyrus as well, it became obvious to at least one of the professional non-Mormon Egyptologists studying the material, Dr. Klaus Baer of the University of Chicago Oriental Institute, that the two fragments had once been joined to form a single, larger section of a scroll. "They seem to have been cut apart after being mounted [on the backing paper]," Baer wrote after studying the photographs closely. Soon afterward he was able to confirm his theory by a physical examination of the fragments themselves. He found that the right edge of the "Small Sensen" papyrus (Papyrus Joseph Smith XI) had indeed originally been joined to the left edge of the fragment from which Facsimile No. 1 (Papyrus Joseph Smith I) had been copied.


 * In fact, Dr. Baer's discovery fits perfectly with descriptions of the Book of Abraham papyrus scroll that occur in the Book of Abraham, itself:


 * . . . and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [picture] at the commencement of this record (Book of Abraham 1:12).


 * A similar reference to Facsimile No. 1 is found two verses later:


 * That you may have an understanding of these gods [before which stood the altar just mentioned ], I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning [of the book] (Book of Abraham 1:14)...


 * fragments I and XI of the Joseph Smith Papyri do in fact dovetail perfectly, as Dr. Baer discovered, and that piecing them back together results in just such an arrangement as is described in the Book of Abraham quotations above, with a drawing at the beginning, or right end, of the scroll.


 * This theory supposes that the text Smith used to translate the first part of the Book of Abraham is directly after the alter facsimilies, and that that text was used to translate. There is no evidence of this. In fact, contemorpary references to papyrus state that Smith did not use the facsimilies as part of his translation process. That being said, if true, discounts this theory.


 * In fact, the charators of the "Small Sensen" papyrus, are written in a column in smith's alphabet/grammar book and the text from the Book of Abraham translation is next to them (http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp341papyrus.gif). This does not tie the two together as smith often included charactors/notes in the margins of his work on both the Book of Mormon and his translation of the bible (the latter had many strange and curious marks in the margins, that were pinned on etc.) Not one scholar believes that the doodles in the margins of the Book of Mormon translations are "Reformed Egyptian." And clearly, not many Mormons familiar with the fragments think that those five or so charactors/words were translated into more than a page's worth of sentences.

In another Larson's (Stan not Charles, but still Anti-Mormon) work on the subject he identifies each of the remaining fragments:


 * After careful examination of the new papyri Baer concluded that they are from three separate documents: (1) the Breathing Permit of the priest Hôr, the son of Osorwêr and Tikhebyt; (2) the Book of the Dead of the lady Tshenmîn, daughter of Skhons; and (3) the Book of the Dead of the female musician of Amon-Re Neferirnûb.15 There is evidence of at least two other Egyptian documents. Facsimile No. 2, the original of which has not survived, belonged to Sheshonq. In the "Valuable Discovery" booklet, which has Joseph Smith's signature on the title page, there are transcribed characters from the Egyptian papyrus which belonged to Amenhotep, the son of Hôr, but again the original is not available.16 Certainly the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith possessed from 1835 to 1844 were more numerous than the papyri fragments that have survived.


 * It seems that everyone else that is not anti-mormon beleives that the surviving docuements were not part of the transation - except Baer. In any case, he thinks the docuements are funerary documents, which most Mormons would very much agree with. They were included to give the deceased reminders of some of the words and signs to show when moving in the afterlife. Not a big stretch for any Mormon.


 * People also assume that the "Book of the Dead" or "Book of Breathings" (sensen) is the same text for each person it was buried with. it was a highly individualized book in most cases - a good example is the jackal head versus the human head in Facsimilie 1, names and dialogue. Nibley who has had more access to the papyrus than any other person thought that only the "smallest and most insignificant-looking of them is connected ... to the Pearl of Great Price."


 * I still need to upload my photographs of the papyrus to this article. Perhaps that will help clear up some confusion. Visorstuff 20:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the table is from Larson, not the Tanners. I'm not sure that it's fair to classify people into Anti-Mormon and Pro-Mormon and accept only the conclusions of one or the other: if we're including points of view, it's fair to cite a source, but it's not quite fair to insert our unattributed characterizations of them. I think Smith's explanations of his translation technique in his Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet make it quite clear that a single glyph would often translate into a full sentence or more of text...glyphs that would be translated by an Eqyptologist today as but a single word. So I don't think it's so much a matter of clearing up any confusion: it's rather a question of presenting all views and attributing them. I don't think anyone maintains that the Books of the Dead are invariant texts, do they? - Nunh-huh 03:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification of where you took the table - was curious. At least you are using half-recent research in the area. Although I agree that it is important to include both Non-Mormon and Mormon sources and POV in the article, it is important to see note the accuracy and reliablilty of the research. If it comes from someone that says they are willing to lie, cheat and steal to hurt an organization, it makes the research much less credible.


 * One fault with Larson's work is his reliance on out of date material, such as the minister in 1912 that said he had a sample of the Book of Abraham text that was translated by an egyptologist. Now that history has vindicated this was impossible, it makes more sense to readers. However, Larson still uses the B.H. Roberts comments about the supposed translation as evidence against the Book of Abraham. Larson should have checked his sources better, both on this and other arguments he made. I can't belive that people still quote from the Fawn Brodie book after all the discredit it has had - evne the most adamant anti-mormons stay away from her work these days, but he still quotes from her work. Don't get me wrong, I think it should be included, but with the caviat that Mormon and Non-Mormon scholars don't always agree with the Anti-Mormon writers on the subject. Clearly, Larson's work is not scholarly, but Anti-Mormon in nature. Intent should be taken into account when referencing a POV source - even if it should be included.


 * I am curious on your source that says smith said that one glyph could translate into multiple sentences. I haven't seen that in my research on the topic, and if true, would provide some additional insight. Could you provide a source? My research shows that he thought that certain characters were parts of words, letters or sometimes oft-used phrases, but not sentences.


 * As far as the invariant texts, the argument is often used by critics of the Book of Abraham - while in fact the diffences between texts is actually a support for the vague translations of the Facsimilies. Visorstuff 16:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again as cited in Larson, Smith's Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language describes a method of translation that differentiates by "degrees" of "significance" based in part on the appearance of the character (e.g. superscripted lines), and gives examples of characters translated "in the first degree", "in the second degree", and so on, up the the "fifth degree". An example is "Iota toues-Zip Zi", translated in the first degree as "The land of Egypt"; in the second degree as "The land which was discovered under water by a woman"; in the third degree "The woman sought to settle her sons in that land. She being the daughter of Ham"; in the fourth degree as "The land of Egypt discovered by a woman who afterwards settled her sons in it"; and in the fifth degree as "The land of Egypt which was first discovered by a woman while under water and afterwards settled by her sons, she being a daughter of Ham -- Any land overflown by water -- A land seen when overflown by water -- land overflown by the seasons, land enriched by being overflown -- low marshy ground". This makes its way into the Book of Abraham 1:23,24, "The land of Egypt being that discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt whch signifies that which is forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land". This certainly seems like several sentences. Are you saying that Larson has misquoted Smith? - Nunh-huh 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that research does not support this theory. See http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mnemonic.htm for a discussion about why those few charactors are not translated "by debrees." In addition, Larson in Chapter eight of his book states that most mormon scholars do not agree with his theory - including the encyclopedia of Mormonism, which is considered by Mormons and Non-Mormons alike vague on many topics such as this. For that volume to disagree with the theory, and actually take a stance when it is full of "we don't know"'s should say something about the reliability of the argument.


 * I am still not in agreement, in any case of your reading (or Larson's) that one glyph translates into many sentences. All Smith said, was that there was more significance to the charactor when there were additional marks surrounding it - something like an accent mark? Or could it be as other Mormon scholars think, a way to remind the oral traditionist of the rest of the dialogue (incidentally, some of the charactors or words in the columns have relationships to key words in the associated text. One scholar writes in the referenced link above, "Although it is true, as pointed out by the non-member critics, that the English text contains many principal words and ideas not reflected in the Egyptian hieratic symbols, we recognized some months ago certain cases in which the hieratic words are found in the corresponding English text. There was clearly some connection, but its exact nature was not apparent. We theorized that perhaps each set of Egyptian symbols represented merely a "key word" which would bring to mind a certain memorized set of phrases, which was part of a longer oral tradition. Oral tradition was not unknown to the Hebrews. Jewish legend and jurisprudence have it that there was in existence, even from the time of Moses, an oral tradition of the law which was passed on from generation to generation and subsequently codified in the Mishnah. If such an oral tradition can be attributed to Moses it can also be attributed to his ancestor, Abraham." Although I disagree with this theory, I think it is quite different than what you mean by your reference below.


 * The reality is no one knows what Smith meant by "significance." Research has shown some correlation betweent the charactors and the sentences, but they are still doodles. Larson points to other pages in the grammar book that covey different meaning, but on the same general topic, with the same charactor in the margin. Could it have been that smith was markign similar ideas with the same "doodle?" or mark - similar to what is done in the manuscripts of Psalm 119? Obviously, those hebrew letters don't translate into many versus, but many manuscrips have the letters drawn out in many places aside from just the headings. I still would like a more reliable, contemporary source about the charactors being translated into multiple sentences.


 * I guess I should not take up more room for this argument here, as it is pointless. My point is not to prove anything to you or any other reader, except that Larson's theory is not a supported enough thought outside anti-Mormon circles - even non-Mormon historians don't subscribe to it in general. If you think this argument is significant enough to put in the text, let's do it, however, please source it as controversial by nature from a known anti-mormon source, and generally not supported by other researchers. -Visorstuff 22:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More on the degree/oral tradition theory
I thought you may like to read the following as well on the theory i think you are trying to refer to:


 * Our investigation has revealed two major points:


 * 1. Joseph Smith, when transcribing the hieratic words from the papyrus into the 'Alphabet and Grammar,' always dealt with complete morphemes. In no case did he copy a meaningless series of hieratic symbols by breaking a word other than at morpheme boundaries. Thus, for instance, when he transcribed a word composed of five hieratic symbols, he never made the mistake (statistically inevitable for anyone to whom the sign symbols are only a meaningless jumble of lines) of transcribing only three or four of the word's five signs, or of transcribing six or seven by including elements of the preceding or following words.


 * Of 19 transcribed hieratic words, 16 were carried over by Joseph Smith into his transcription as complete words. The transcription of only three of the words involved breaking them in two, and the breaks were always made at valid morpheme boundaries. In two of these cases, the break was made between root-morphemes and their suffixes and/or ideographic determinatives. In only one case was such a break within an alphabetically written word, and this occurred at such a place that the two word-halves created by the break could be analyzed as two valid semantic elements. This first discovery implies that Joseph Smith's handling of the hieratic symbols was not haphazard: a person with no insight into the meaning of the symbols would have been bound to make a false division


 * 2. In every case the meaning of the hieratic word shows up in some relevant way in the juxtaposed verses from the Book of Abraham, whereas comparison of the hieratic with the preceding or following (rather than juxtaposed) English passages destroys the consistency of the parallels. Likewise, no significant parallels were found when the hieratic was compared in a similar way to other texts, such as the Book of Moses. Thus, the hieratic words seem to have a special relationship to the Book of Abraham and particularly to the verses with which they were connected by Joseph Smith.


 * In a number of cases, the parallels are further amplified by a relationship not simply of the narrow meaning of the hieratic words, but also of the underlying religious background of the words to the content of the relevant English passages. Furthermore, in the case of numerous hieratic words, homophonous Hebrew words have been found which also have meanings which appear in relevant ways in the associated English verses - a fact which might be expected if the text had been adopted as a memory device by a group of Semitic people for a specific Hebrew secret oral tradition.


 * This second discovery implies also that the author of the Book of Abraham had a significant insight into the meaning of the hieratic words of the Sen-Sen papyrus, and that the symbols on this papyrus have a definite relationship to the Book of Abraham verse with which Joseph Smith associated them.

From Mnemonic Device of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar & the Book of Abraham (Oct. 25, 1968), by John Tvedtnes.

The page you reference itself agrees that the relationship between symbol and corresponding text is troublesome, because so much text corresponds to a very compact symbol. The page tries to solve that "problem" by suggesting that the correspondance is not one of translation but of mnemonic. To me this makes little sense: if one "maps" onto the other, it's essentially translation. Since this problem seems to be acknowledged by all (I'm assuming you don't think the site you referred to is anti-Mormon) it seems it needs to be mentioned in the article. - Nunh-huh 23:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

to study is to understand? what does this mean?
This paragraph doesn't make sense to me:


 * To some, these arguments sound like special pleading, but most of those who study the Book of Abraham in detail understand the basis of the arguments.

The paragraph suggests some secret explanation of why these arguments are valid, but it doesn't provide that explanation. Remove the paragraph, or write something which explains why special pleading is not valid here.

I never liked the paragraph either - i think the point was tying to be made that this forum cannot address the complexities of each of the theories. The paragraph has been removed. -Visorstuff 14:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of anti-mormon.
Simply because a work goes against Mormon teaching such as Larson's or Tanner's comments about the gross mistranslations doesn't mean they are 'point of view' and need to be removed. They should be included along with the critism. I understand the desire to remove such things but the fact that Smith translated something without anything to do with the Book of Abraham to be the Book of Abraham seems need including in the article wouldn't you think? Removing everything you deem "anti-mormon" doesn't give it a NPOV it gives it a Mormon point of view. I think it's a rather critical addition. Tat 08:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that non-Mormon and even Anti-Mormon sources should be included in works, providing that they are founded on real research that can be supported or shared as opinions, as are Mormon claims.


 * You may want to read the dialogue we had on your recent edit that was removed in the above section titled, "Nonsense."


 * The plain fact of the matter is that the Tanners nor Gee nor any other researcher knows if Smith tried to do a one-to-one translation of the work, or if there were other alternatives for translation. Many in the Mormonism community (both pro and anti) are split on this subject.


 * I understand Larson's work on the supposed "water" translation you cited, however, was that truly part of of the text Smith used? If so, I'd love to see the *primary* document citing this, other than doodles in the margin of text, similar to how the manuscripts of 119 Psalm are written. I've done quite a bit of research in this area, and I haven't seen support, and doubt there is more info on it. Larsons "water" translation is pure conjecture and cannot be supported by any other evidence, research or otherwise. He gets that by what he thinks is Smith's correct guesses of paragraphs and charactors surrounding the supposed translation. I am working on an article about the Hypocephalus that hopefully will help clear this folklore theory up and provide an open and objective view into BoA translations. In academia, peer review does not equate to Larson's work - just because some anti-Mormons jump on the bandwagon and re-publish it, doesn't mean that it can be supported.


 * In fact, if you look at the Tanner's more conservative views (than the Larsons claims) on the translation, they point out that it is their assessment that Smith didn't do a one-to-one translation, which some other anti-mormons and mormon apologists agree with. It is also interesting that the Tanners although they use and quote from portions of larson's work, they don't support all of its conclusions. It is too problematic and unsupported by primary research. Rather they use Nibley's, Gee's, BYU Studies, FARMS and other Mormon scholars research as accurate and they point to the problems with the conclusions in Mormon research. Rarely do they accept Larsons or others research on the matter as accurate or authoritative. Why? Again, it is because it is too problematic and unsupported by primary research. -Visorstuff 19:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That should be included and commented on in a critic section of the work. It apparently come up enough to warrent an explanation and rebuttle. Also alteration of the Hypocephalus to include divinely inspired replacements where the old ones were written in. Divinely inspired, and written in upside-down. If you run a google search for Book of Abraham you'll get pages upon pages of links. Include the critics and include the apologetics. Tat 11:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

De-accessioned papyri from the Metropolitan Museum of Art?
"However, some portions of them were rediscovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which made them available for study by scholars." The fact is, the process of de-accessioning material at the Met is very carefully organized and scrutinized by trustee committees. No material could have been "given" to the Mormons, or even sold in a private sale. This tale was added to the "discovered in the Metropolitan Museum" element, 23:30, 9 Jun 2004 by User:COGDEN. This is a error, to be tactful about it. --Wetman 07:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * While this may typically be the case, in 1967, the Museum presented the papyri as a gift to the LDS Church (mediated by a Dr. Aziz S. Atiya from the University of Utah and others) - pretty decent-sized media affair - was in national headlines, including, if I remember right, the New York Times. The papyri was discoverd in 1966 by a Aziz, and after it was given to the Church, on of my immediate family members was involved in the initial study, anaysis and photography of the specimin. If you'd like we can dig up old newspaper articles about this, but it is not an error. My additional question is: does this address your issue properly (even though it fits outside the norm)? Is this what you think was the error? or do you dispute that the documents were "discovered" in the Met? The statment factually accurate as COGDEN wrote it.

See the UofU's history of the event in this catalogue entry about boxes in the Aziz collection :
 * The material in boxes 40 and 41, dating from 1959 to 1972, was donated in 1976 and 1991 and includes materials relating primarily to the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri and Atiya’s role in making them public. While searching for Coptic and Arabic papyri in the Metropolitan Museum of Art storeroom in New York City, Atiya discovered the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri, significant because they are the original documents used for research to write Facsimile No. 1 of the Book of Abraham, a scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. Since the Egyptian language could not be read in the 1830s and 1840s when the papyri were supposedly translated, this discovery provided the first chance to check Joseph Smith’s ability to translate the Egyptian papyri. Atiya functioned as the mediator between the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the First Presidency of the LDS Church. These boxes contain a transcribed interview of Atiya by Everett L. Cooley and Marian sheets; correspondence; photocopied material regarding the Book of Abraham; a paper on Atiya’s Mount Sinai expedition; a biography of Dr. Libib Habuchi, a noted Nubian scholar; copies of the issue of the Improvement Era that features Joseph Smith and the papyri in English and other languages; programs from Atiya’s lectures and displays, and Dr. Philip B. Price’s “Ethiopian Journal,” recording his journey to Ethiopia.

Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 16:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! The complete story should be in the Wikipedia article! --Wetman 21:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abraham's name on the papyri?
I wanted to discuss the editing comment made by Visorstuff that the name Abraham is accepted as being found on the Egyptian papyri. I've never heard this before, and I wanted to verify it. I was aware that somebody found a lion altar scene similar to Facsimile 1 that contained the name Abraham. Is this what you are referring to? CO GDEN  18:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies in my haste to edit. There are other known samples of texts with the Lion couch scene - both include the name Abraham on them or "I, Abraham" - the quote is "Abraham who upon..." and the remainder is missing in the one, but the other alludes to "the couch." See Janet H. Johnson, “The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden (1975).” The corresponding portion in the Smith papyrus is destroyed. Interesting coincidence if you believe God wants us to know by faith that the Book of Abraham is true. -Visorstuff 23:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The distinguished scholar Janet H. Johnson, Professor of Near Eastern Languages at the University of Chicago, was author of an article on a papyrus at Leiden, accessioned as "Leiden I 384". In her article "The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384," published in the series Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden volume 56 (1975), pp 29-64. Prof. Johnson most certainly did not find "Abraham" anywhere in the Egyptian papyri she described. --Wetman 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction to my citation - I left off the I 384 and series name by mistake. Look at column XIII line 6 - beneath the drawing are the greek words Abraham who upon..." and again in column VIII line 16 we find the name again. Nevertheless you can fine it here as well: Griffith and Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, col. VIII line 8. There are additional references as well, but these third century ones will suffice for this article. One thing is for sure - that is egyptians were facinated with cows/bulls, abraham and stars, among other things. -Visorstuff 02:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * F. L. Griffith and Herbert Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden (1904) was reprinted by Dover, as The Leyden Papyrus, 1974. In its 1904 preface the editors noted "The influence of purely Greek mythology also is here by comparison very slight&mdash;hardly greater than that of the Alexandrian Judaism which has supplied a number of names of Hellenistic form to the demotic magician." Indeed, in the on-line excerpts at SacredTexts.com, the translation of col. VIII.8 reads "(8) inquire here to-day. Come in Piatoou, Khitore; ho! Shop, Shope, Shop, Abraham, the apple (?) of the Eye of the Uzat,"  1. The papyrus itself has nothing to do with either historical Abraham nor Abraham of Genesis save the conjuring use of the name. 2. The represented "translation" of the Book of Abraham does not translate this papyrus. Are not those are the two facts behind all the mystification? --Wetman 21:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand your point #2. Can you explain in more detail before I respond? All that was said is that a simlar text is found in the surviving "book of abraham" papyrus the LDS Church owns. Most of what smith had was destroyed. The quote is in a section about apologetic responses - and is relative to their study. Of course the two translations wouldn't match up as they are not the same documents, and Smith claimed to recieve the Book of Abraham by revelation. And of course apologists look for any parallel/similarity. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are trying to say - can you clarify? Incidentally, Uzat means healer, messiah, medicine/miracle worker/doctor, savior, right? Interesting Hellenistic-Christian-Judaic parallel. Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 23:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi from Tom Haws
Hi. I'm new here. Hope I didn't just step into a minefield. Tom Haws 20:06, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Facsimiles
Ah! Good catch, Visorstuff! In trying to provide a better introduction for the paragraph dealing with the Facsimiles, I completely forgot about the second artist. Thanks for adding that. KevinM 21:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Black people
The lack of objectivity in this article regarding the prejudice against Blacks should not be tolerated. I placed the scriptural references relating to the prejudice in the article. I will not allow it to be taken down. This article so far seems to be a whitewashing and doctoring up of Mormonism, little better than a propaganda article.

I hope Wikipedia is not catering to the Mormon lobby that seeks to erase the ignorance and prejudice that is part of the foundation of the Mormon religion.

Oh and Haws, you didn't step into a minefield. I have studied this matter extensively and all of the explanation that you read above that seems, and i stress, SEEMS, to be good solid research is not. What happens is, in many aspects of linguistic theory, you can take a variety of random events and find a pattern. However, that does not mean there is a legitimate pattern. With Joseph Smith, he had used a method of relating Hebrew words into his scriptures, and relying on the King James translation of the Bible to support his legitimacy. Much of what you see, is a "King James"ing of his writing, which obviously will contribute to finding a pattern, even one that looks legitimate. I will be more than happy to elaborate.

And please be aware, this article will eventually get a POV warning as the scholarly research that does not "agree" with Mormon apologists is considered anti-mormon. There is a REASON that some scholars are anti-mormon, and that reason is this: Mormon apology is rife with false research and obscurities. There is far too much pseudo-research in Mormon study and that offends many scholars. The religious conclusions especially in regards to race and women have done a lot of damage, and the misinformation is still causing waste. So yes, I would conclude that anyone that disagrees with Mormon scholars would be "anti-mormon" just like people that disagree with NAZI philosophy is "anti-Nazi", but that doesn't mean the "anti" is not credible.


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox to prove a point. Nor should you threaten other editors as you have above, resulting in an potential Edit war. These edits are more appropriate for Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and not all Mormonism-related churches who believe in the Book of Abraham interpreted these passages the same way as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would encourage you to move many of your thoughts there. Most of us are familiar with your theories, both the Mormon and Non-Mormon editors on this page, and have settled on a factual, non emotional and accurate portrayal of the book of abraham. As for your lat comment, unfortunately, not a lot of non-LDS scholars have addressed this topic. I can only think of three out side of teh latter day saint movement - can you point to others? Charles Larson - was in the movement, whom you seem to believe.

We invite you to become a part of the WP:LDS if you have expertise in the Latter Day Saint movement, and to be a part of Wikipedia. You can sign your posts by signing with three tildes ~. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 13:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I removed ", encompassed more than priesthood rights, but the actual human value and worthiness of the Black people," as there is no support for that in the passages you cite. Blacks were welcome to be a part of mormonism, but could not hold the priesthood. see relevant article as pointed to above. Visorstuff 14:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale revert and adding back in from the pre-revert
I did a wholesale revert and then added back in material that I reverted - as the earlier version flowed better, and was more accurate. if the User:149.166.233.32 would like to discuss what was not accurate in his edit, please bring up the discussion here. -Visorstuff 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted back again - agree it may need more analysis and criticism, but it needs to be accurate. That was not accurate. I also fixed inaccuate quotations. If you have problems discuss here first. -Visorstuff 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the inaccurate quotation, I assume you're referring to the opening sentence under "origin"? (The work is based on a set of Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith obtained in July of 1835, which he describes as "A translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus).

I removed "A translation of" from the beginning of the J.S. quote here because Smith did not refer to the PAPYRI as "A translation of" anything. He said the BOOK OF ABRAHAM was "A translation of some ancient records," the ancient records of course being the papyri. See the difference?

As for the criticism you removed: The article is unbalanced without it, and I highly doubt you would consider any critique to be "accurate." You seem to want to set up a straw man here instead. -wikipac


 * On the contrary. You have no history of contributing on Wikipedia, and are making claims, which I've outlined below are incorrect. Dates, places, and items are completely wrong. You are not sourcing anything, and seem to have a bone to pick. I don't care if it reflects positively on Smith or the Latter Day Saint movement, but I do care if it is correct. Your edits would be peer reviewed out of existence in a scholarly forum. If you can provide sources, please do. The fact is that most non-Mormon scholars and academcians do not study the papyrus, nor have they. So state most scholars say this, is a misnomer, as they arent' out there. If you can add in "numerous" references of scholars citing contrary, please do. But I think you'll only find a handful, some which are not qualified to make such claims. Even the Tanners don't attack the BOA in this way. They've taken a wait-and-see approach.

And even your "translation" removal is incorrect, as shown below. I hope you do stay on wikipedia, but you are going to have to start showing sources and not opinion. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research or opinions (see What Wikipedia is not. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why edits are incorrect
Hi Wikipac. I'm in favor of a balanced article, however, I am also in favor of an accurate article.

Let's take the edits one by one:

The use of the word "purported" or purporting -

the original publication of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons read as follows: "A Translation of some Ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt" From a earlier version of the history of the church it reads: "a translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The purported writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus" (See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351). Someone early understood that they were purporting or purported texts and tried to reflect that in the printing. As smith oversaw it, we can guess it was him, but cannot be sure. So, the "neutral" edit is factually incorrect.

Second the revised edit states- "Upon their release, Egyptologists quickly identified the bulk of the Joseph Smith Papyri as portions of a 1st Century A.D. Book of Breathings" I am interested in what Egyptologists paid attention to this find. In fact, it wasn't of interest to most egyptologists - those who were non-affilated with a relious center of study (ie were not employed by a church) - rather described it some funerary texts and some texts describing farming in near the Nile. It was a Mormon scholar who pointed to the document being a portion of the book of breathings (Nibley) not a non-Mormon scholar.

Next you removed teh following. I'm not sure why. "This identification of texts is often used by scholars as evidence against the book's authenticity. The Book of Breathings should not be confused with a similar book, the Book of Gates. Another section of the papyrus deals with farm life near the Nile. Though not all of the papyrus Joseph Smith possessed was recovered, the Book of Breathings itself exists in many more complete papyri."

Each statement here is important. First, the claim that this is used to dispute the BOA's authenticity. Why did you remove this? Do you think it proves it?

Second, "The Book of Breathings should not be confused with a similar book, the Book of Gates." Many Mormon amateur historians come across the book of Gates, and confuse it with the book of breathings. Particularly, because of its simliarities to the Mormon endowment. After death, according the the book of gates and the mormon endowment, the deceased has to share certain key words or pass certain tests at each gate in order to progress. The Book of Breathings, has similar instructions, but amatuer LDS apologists point to the book of gates as the book of breathings and say this proves the book of abraham, as the BOA has so much "temple" stuff in it. I think this should be left in.

Next, "another section of the papyrus deals with farm life near the Nile." This is the section that has the serpent that some have speculated is the Serpent legend Smith referred to in his Egyptian grammar. Again, it is significant, as it was not religious-based at all.

Finally you removed: "Though not all of the papyrus Joseph Smith possessed was recovered, the Book of Breathings itself exists in many more complete papyri." I could care less if this stayed. Probably a good deletion.

Next you added "There was no obvious connection between the newly discovered fragments and the biblical Abraham." That is fine.

Next, you wrote: "Mormon apologists have developed a number of theories in defense of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. The most popular theories argue the following:" - Apologists don't develop therioes, they suggest them. Academicians and scholars develop them. I don't know of any apologist who actively do their own research to develop theoreies. Just my opinion. I'm fine either way.

You removed: "The missing sections of the papyri are large and could have contained the text Joseph Smith based the Book of Abraham on" - curious as to why? This is a very popular theory and is very well supported based on smiths descriptions of the different colored-text on the papyrus versus what we have today. This seems strange that a serious editor or scholar would delete this. Please explain.

You added in the following: "contrary to his own account of the origin of the book of Abraham, may have" Can you point to a source where smith describes the tranlsation process as word for word? please cite the descrepacny.

I'm fine with the addition: "Critics, however, point out that the recovered papyri bear no direct connection, either historical or textual, to Abraham. In addition to this, the main arguments against the Book of Abraham’s authenticity are:"

You removed the similarities of the abraham account and the Book of Jasher. Curious as to why? This is a good guess by smith or at least a coincidence? An earlier version shows more simliarites between Jasher and the BOA abraham that is different than what you call the "biblical abraham."

Also, aside from "ur of the chaldees," what are other examples of "Numerous anachronisms?" Please provide a source and examples.

You wrote: Joseph Smith’s translation of facsimiles, which are included in the Book of Abraham, do not bear any similarity to modern Egyptologist’s understanding of these figures. A conference held in the late 1800s stated that one of the similar hypocephali that are available was an astrological document - discussing the relationship between earth and other heavenly bodies. Smith's discussed the relationshipe between earth and Kolob and other stars. I'll have to pull the exact source, but you can listen to Nibley discuss the paper presented at the conference at http://speeches.byu.edu. (I think it is Critical Opinion of the Pearl of Great Price, but I'll have to verify at another time).

The other two bullets' I think are written POV, but I'm fine with.

But the last which reads "The Joseph Smith Papyri have been determined to be from after 500 B.C., which is at least 1000 years after Abraham’s lifetime. This fact contradicts the introduction to the Book of Abraham, which states that the book represents “The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus” (see History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351)."

Again this is factually incorrect. The papyrus is a second century document - not 500 B.C. Second, you've used an printing error already discussed above - the times and seasons (and incidentally, my copy of the history of the church) use the word "purportedly." The copy at the beginning of the current standard works does not use the word. I've been unable to verifify if it is a printing error, or if it was done on purpose, as it was discussed not long after in the church's publication, the Ensign. Third, all this statement means is that Abraham wrote an account on Papyrus. This particular verion could be a copy. Using this logic, you have to discount the ealiest copy (appearing 300-500 AD) Colosians, Ephesians, Thessalonians 2, Timothy 1&2 and Titus for example, all self-claim to be authored by him, as he says they were "written" by his own hand, but now ""At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter" (or the other referece ). He wasn't alive between 300-500 AD, but that is when the earliest copies are dated to. The claim you make does not make sense to any serious scholar.

Finally, there is evidence that smith was familiar with the Rosetta stone, especially if he ever read the newspaper. As he was an editor during the time of translation of the BOA, he would have. Richard Bushman makes the argument, that he tried to line up his "revealed" translation with a word-for-word and could not. He writes: "His willingness to engage a Hebrew teacher is some indication Joseph recognized that the word "translation" for his dictation of the Book of Mormon was a misnomer. He knew his mode of translating was different from the scholars’. He wanted Seixas to teach him the other way. I interpret the Egyptian Grammar as a failed attempt to bring the two processes together, that is, to learn Egyptian while he was translating by inspiration."

Next you wrote: "Rosetta Stone, a large granite tablet which contained a message written in two languages, Egyptian and Greek." This is incorrect. There were three languages - Hieroglyphic, Demotic Egyptian and Greek. The translation from greek to Demotic were completed in 1814 by Thomas Young, and bulk of the heiroglyphic translation were done by the late 1820s, though never fully completed.

Next, you wrote "However, because this knowledge wasn’t well disseminated to the United States at the time Joseph Smith made his translation, his text couldn’t be checked by scholars for accuracy." This is wrong on two fronts. First, Chandler certified that what Smith told him of the mummies was in fact, the same as what other egyptologists did.


 * In 1828, a French explorer named Antonio Sebolo, secured permission from Mehemit Ali, the viceroy of Egypt to explore for antiquities. Three years later, in 1831 he brought the mummies with the BOA papyrus to france where they were studied and he died. He left them and the "results" of the study in paris (presumably, in Paris, they knew about Champollian's work?) to his nephew in Philidelphia - Michael H. Chandler. They were delivered to him shortly. He studied what was done with them, and the translations based on "the best scholarship" and in 1835, went on tour with them in the US. His display consisted of 11 mummies (four of which the church purchased) and was considered one of the most accurate displays. He was told to search of Smith, as he had a working knowledge of ancient languages. In July 1835, Chandler reached Kirtland with the mummies and found Smith.


 * According to the History of the church, "There were four human figures ...together with . . . hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:


 * "`This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that could ever learn, or meet with, I find that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. Signed Michael H. Chandler, Traveling with and proprietor of Egyptian mummies.'" (dated July 6, 1835.)-Text found in History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.235.

Second, as discussed above, the Rosetta Stone was well-known - it was monumental and many saw it as a way to "prove" the bible true. Charles Anthon had a copy of the greek/demotic translations by the time Martin Harris came to him with the BOM charactors. Francis Kirkham in "A New Witness for Christ in America" writes that the 1814 translation (from demotic) was available in america by 1816 at the latest. Of the various translations, here are they are:

1802 - a partial by Akerblad. 1814 - Young 1818 - Young with his "alphabet" 1822 - Champollion's "alphabet" 1824 - Champollion's Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique 1826 - Hieroglyphics available in English 1829 - Book of Mormon charachters shown to Anthon, who confirms they are of ancient source 1830 - BOM printed 1842 - Book of Abraham printed in the Times and Seasons

With this timeline, it is ludicrious to think that Smith had no knowledge of the Champollion's work, but was rather, trying to do something similar. There was an 18 year difference, and Smith was very up-to-date on scientific discoveries, incluing the new field of meso-american archeology, and egyptology. He seemed to cared little from Greek and latin, but studied them in addition to hebrew, german and similar discoveries. There fore, youre edit is either very oversimplified (discounts evidence to the contrary, or draws conclusion where there ought not to be one) or is factually incorrect.

I will not revert/make edits until your response or Wednesday. Strive for accuracy, not opinion. I hope I've provided enough sources, but if you want more, let me know. I expect the same from you. -Visorstuff 17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why edits are not incorrect
Hello Visorstuff. I'll try to take this point by point, but the main issue here is that some critique needs to be represented in this article. Whether or not you happen to be convinced by the specific arguments I've added it is irrelevant. The points I've inserted do in fact represent some of the main criticisms that have been made against the authenticity of the book of Abraham, and as such, need to be present. When I first ran across this article I was surprised to see the "analysis and criticism" section full of apologetics. But I didn't take the apologetics out, I just moderated it's very definitive tone and added some standard criticism, most of which comes from the articles by Klaus Baer, Edward H. Ashment, Robert K. Ritner, Steven E. Thompson, and the books by Palmer and Larson, all of which I'm sure you're familiar with.

1) The use of purported: As you acknowledge, "purported" is NOT used in the standard works, which is the CANNONIZED version of this statement. To imply that this represents a "printing error" defies credulity. Leave it out.

2) The Egyptologists who paid attention to the find: There was nothing in my statement that implied only Non-Mormon Egytologists were involved in this. But egyptologists certainly were interested, for example Klaus Baer, Richard A. Parker, and John A. Wilson. But I don't really care either way.

3) Removal of "This identification of texts is often used by scholars as evidence against the book's authenticity.": I took this out because it was the straw man you were thrashing in the "analysis and criticsm" section. I replaced it with some actual critique. But put it back in if you please.

4) Removal of "The Book of Breathings should not be confused with a similar book, the Book of Gates.": This is fine, leave it in if you want. I just took it out for continuity.

5) Removal of "another section of the papyrus deals with farm life near the Nile.": I didn't remove this, I just moved it to the end of the paragraph.

6) Removal of "Though not all of the papyrus Joseph Smith possessed was recovered, the Book of Breathings itself exists in many more complete papyri.": You don't care, so I won't argue it.

7) Whether aplolgists develop theories or suggest them: You're splitting hairs here. Change "develop" to "suggest" if it's that important to you, I don't care.

8) Removal of "The missing sections of the papyri are large and could have contained the text Joseph Smith based the Book of Abraham on": First, this is somewhat repetitive of the first point (The remaining papyrus fragments may not be the only ones Smith translated the Book of Abraham from). If you want to combine the two statements that would be fine, but you need to phrase these as theories, not facts, so be careful of the wording. As to your insinuation that a "serious editor or scholar" wouldn't delete it, steer clear of personal attacks. And remember, you've done a fair ammount of deleting yourself.

9) Addition of "contrary to his own account of the origin of the book of Abraham, may have received the account by revelation": You want quotes?

How about the obvious: "a TRANSLATION of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Or from Times and Seasons: "A considerable quantity of the matter in the last paper was in type before the establishment came into my hands. . . . In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham WHICH I SHALL CONTINUE TO TRANSLATE & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed..."

Now we can split hairs over whether Joseph called it a "word for word" translation, or to what extent revelation may or may not have been involved. But the fact is that the Cannonized introduction to the book refers to it as a translation, Joseph Smith clearly called it a translation, and the leadership of the church (prophets, apostles, living oracles etc.) have spent the last 170 years presenting it to the membership of the church and the world as a translation. If it wasn't a translation, what on earth were the papyri even for?

10) Removal of similarity to book of Jasher, Ur of Chaldees, etc: I removed it because it's apologetics, and seems out of place in the "analysis and criticism section." Replace it if you want, but I'll feel inclined to add more criticism if you do, for the sake of balance. I thought the section on the Rosetta stone was much more relevant.

11) Anachronisms: Steven E. Thompson names 4 anachronistic names: "Chaldea, Potiphar, Egyptus, and probably Pharoh." He concludes with "I believe that there is sufficient evidence of anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham to conclude that it cannot be an actual Abraham holograph, i.e., that it was not 'written by his (Abraham's) own hand upon papyrus.'" Now that I think of it, this should all be mentioned in the article.

12) Your objection to "Joseph Smith’s translation of facsimiles, which are included in the Book of Abraham, do not bear any similarity to modern Egyptologist’s understanding of these figures.": Again, this is one of the major scholarly criticisms that has been raised, and whether or not you are convinced by it is irrelevant. It's a criticism that needs to be represented in the article.

I would however, like to add some material to the article explaining why critics make this claim. I think it would be especially helpful to introdice a picture of the actual papyri from which  J.S. got Facsimilie 1. We could then demonstrate how he had the missing portions of it restored, and describe where he went wrong, mentioning of course what egyptologists think the restoration should look like. I like Richard A. Parker's description best, which says that facsimilie 1 should have included the Jackal headed Anubis; that the left hand of the figure on the table (Osiris, not Abraham) should be lying at his side; that the penciled in raised hand should actually be the wingtip of a bird which is hovering over Osiris' erect phallus and being impregnated by him, etc. I think this would all be very informative, and would have direct relevence to the caption under the figure of facsimilie 1 in the article, which needs to be changed. 13) As for the dating of the document (500 B.C. vs. second century): I was being generous, placing it closer to Abraham's lifetime, erring on the side of caution. Notice that I said it was from AFTER 500 B.C. which is still correct. But change it if you want, your correction only serves to move the document further from Abraham.

We've already discussed the use of "purportedly."

14) Rosetta Stone issue: I didn't say Smith wasn't familiar with the Rosetta stone, I said that the ability to translate Egyptian Hieroglyphs "wasn’t well disseminated to the United States at the time Joseph Smith made his translation." I stand by that statement. What Chandler said Smith said about the mummies has nothing to do with whether or not the ability to translate hieroglyphs was well disseminated to the U.S. No offense, but the rest of your comments here ammount to little more than some first rate obfuscation.

15) I noticed you didn't bring up my deletion of "a translation of" from the opening quote. Apparently this means you concede the point?

16)Again, the main point is that this article needs balance, and your removal of all criticism is no way to achieve it. Whether or not you are convinced by the criticisms is immaterial. The fact is that these criticisms have been made and they need to be represented. -wikipac

Response
Let me address piece by piece what you did address of my concerns.

First, i've repeately stted, that I'm in favor of criticism for the article, but it needs to be accurate. Unless you want to say, here "are common perceptions that are not academically sound."

I'm very familiar with Klaus Baer, and both Larsons works on the matter. I've read portions of the others. Incidentally, for Steven E Thompson to be sourced, it seems like he should have more than 13 google hits when you search his name. Even I have more than that. However, it has been suggested, and I have not confirmed that he is part of the Mormonism movement. Whether pro or anti, I don't know, but he is not outside of the Mormonism movement.

Klaus Baer would be a good source to use in the article. He is a well-respected and widely-published author. In Nibley's biography, you can read from a letter from Klaus Baer to the Tanners that Nibley's "articles in [the Improvement Era on the Book of Abraham] hit very close to home if you know something about the field." . He pubished in Mormon forums on the topic. He even wrote that the "only" argument that "will get the Mormons out of the dilemma,"--that it is not the Egyptian text but the English one that can provide evidence for its authenticity. . He also makes the assertion that Smith knew what he was translating much moreso than critics (and your edits) give him credit for: "Professor Klaus Baer begins and ends his exceedingly valuable study with the assertion that Joseph Smith thought he was actually translating the so-called "Breathing Permit." (Improvement Era, January 1969). Please cite passages from him.


 * 1) 1 You write:


 * The use of purported: As you acknowledge, "purported" is NOT used in the standard works, which is the CANNONIZED version of this statement. To imply that this represents a "printing error" defies credulity. Leave it out.

Why leave out the primary source? Why are you afraid of using a historical document? A primary source? Lets leave in the original. I've already mentioned that the use of the word purportedly is similar in both examples under smith's watch and changed later. One would side with the original source, wouldn't they? It is relevant and needs to be included, as both pro and anti use the word in their theories.


 * 1) 2You wrote:
 * The Egyptologists who paid attention to the find: There was nothing in my statement that implied only Non-Mormon Egytologists were involved in this. But egyptologists certainly were interested, for example Klaus Baer, Richard A. Parker, and John A. Wilson. But I don't really care either way.

My edit stated: "Mormon Egyptologists have generally concluded that some of the remaining papyrus fragments comprise portions of a 1st Century A.D. Book of Breathings..." You changed it to read "Upon their release, Egyptologists quickly identified the bulk of the Joseph Smith Papyri as portions of a 1st Century A.D. Book of Breathings..." The edit implies that in general, the whole field identified the papyrus as false. It was Nibley who identified it. It was VERY implied.

Parker is the one who supplied the translation (which other versions are typically used by anti-mormons) of some of the papyrus. He did it as a favor to Nibley for the improvement era, and was not terribly interested in it. Am curious if you have more works by him? Maybe I'm missing the research? Wilson is another friend of Nibleys who he went to for a translation. His is not well-referenced. But again, did not publish on the topic, aside from with Nibley's pushing. I'm not seeing the vast amount of non-LDS egyptologist interest you are referencing. I'm suprised you didn't use DeeJay Nelson (another discussion for another time). Nibley was very aware of his limitation, which is why he brought in these others. Larson on the other hand, who does not know egyptian, and is no egyptologist, who you reference, apparently thinks he is smarter than nibley and takes care to attempt to translate portions in his latest work.


 * 1) 3. Umm, okay? How is this a strawman?


 * 1) 4 It should be added back in.


 * 1) 5 My apologies. I missed the moving, and only saw the delete.


 * 1) 6. You seem to don't know what you don't know here. The Book of Breathings title is a misnomer. It was very highly individualized. A comparison title would be something like - we translated the "book of remembrance" that accompanied his families genealogical record. Not all "book of remembreances" are the same - in the same way, not all book of teh breathings are the same. Some are very similar (as are hypocephali - which we will get to in a minute) but no two are supposed to be the same. I think its fine to leave it in as a criticsm, but it shows a lack of understanding on the topic. Kinda funny and simplified to someone who has studied it.


 * 1) 7 okay


 * 1) 8 Most current scholarship agrees with this. To me, it has moved past the realm of theory, not a fact yet, but much closer than a common supposition. In 35. Zondhoven, Annual Egyptological Bibliography 1977, 180-81. A non-LDS egyptologist writes "the Pap. Joseph Smith XI and X containing the Book of Breathings were wrongly identified by others with Joseph Smith's book of Abraham." I believe Larson addresses this under his treatment of the "Missing Black and Red Scroll" Theory (pp. 129-34) in his book. He seems to be the only source that refutes this theory. Even Baer, Parker and Wilson are undecided on the topic. I wasn't personally attacking you - I'm sorry you feel that way, I just was thinking of interviews with the above. They woulnd't delete it, and I'm suprised you have taken larson's work as factually as you have.

9) Translation. SMith considered translating a branch of his calling. The Book of Moses (and excerpt from the JST and portions of the D&C are "translations" that took place without any ancient documents. We are unsure of Smith's meaning of the word translation. Obviously, he considered "revelations" could be translations. (as per the example of the first few chapters of the JST which are in the Pearl of Great Price as the book of Moses. We do NOT know, however, the process, or if it was a word-for-word translation. To assume any more than this is over-simplifiying and not looking at evidence. It seems strange. You seem to think taht everything that is "Cannonized" is perfect. There are still errors, printing and otherwise, in the canon of the LDS church. Someday it will be removed. Even in the bible, there are changes that have been made. This is beside the point. And thank-you for providing sources in your response to this and items 11 & 12.


 * 1) 10 Feel free to add back in the Jasher stuff in a more appropriate place. I thought it actually supaported your point. Both are relevant.


 * 1) 11 Numerous anachronisms = four? Why not just say four? Numerous implies more than 10 to me. If thomson knows of more, I'm curious of why he doesnt name them in the text you reference. Seems odd for a "scholar" not to be overly wordy.


 * 1) 12. You need to go back and read my comments about this above. Perhaps you miss my point.

As for your "restoring texts" some have suggested that those pieces were undamaged until the Nauvoo period, but were intact. According to primary sources, including history of the church, the papyrus was remarkably preserved. second, losing a jackal head with a bald head (which larson cites, and you apparently are referring to) is actually an evidence for. for smith to know it was a priest (hence the jackal head on annubias' priest) was a pretty darn good guess. but this is not relevant to the argument at hand. As for the phallic images, I'd like to see another specimen or another papyrus (as opposed to a temple wall) where the figure on the lion couch is ithyphallic. It cannot be done. It does not exist. In fact, the other similar docuemnts do not show this. It is specific to Larsons "research." Second, most recent egyptologists do not think that the figure is Osiris. But that is a discussion for another time.

Klaus Baer said "Facs[imile] No. 3 is not a judgment scene and exact parallels may be hard to find." Much the same might be said of the other facsimiles.

However, Larson, who has no formal egyptology training, disagrees with Baer, who is respected.

Larson never deals with what occurs on the Egyptian papyri we have. He never discusses what they do say. He only attacks what smith did and says it is wrong. What did the texts mean to the Egyptians? "His only attempt at indicating what any of the papyri mean is an explanation of Joseph Smith Papyrus I (p. 102). But the explanation not only matches no Egyptian text;23 it makes no sense. How can grandchildren be present at their father's conception? Can Larson produce any Egyptian text where the Egyptians make this mistake?"

"But whereas Larson's philological errors are hidden, his errors in restorations of ancient texts are quite manifest. Not only is his restoration of Joseph Smith Papyrus I obscene, it is impossible (pp. 64-65, 102). Larson provides what he claims to be a "professional reconstruction" (pp. 62-65), contrasting it with Joseph Smith's reconstruction of missing portions of the papyri, of which he is extremely critical. To restore a lacuna without the aid of revelation, however, careful comparison to parallel texts must be done in order to show that the restorations are even possible...While Larson has noted that there are some characters above the figures, he has misunderstood the implications. The characters are in vertical columns marked by vertical lines to either side of the text, a practice reserved for cases where there is more than one column of text. Given at least two columns of text, there is no room for the bird hovering over the figure. A hand is the only reasonable restoration. Besides, the artist has already demonstrated how he draws the end of a bird's wing, and it is not in separate strokes.25 Thus the restoration Larson mocks (pp. 155-56) is possible, whereas his own is not."

Larson and Nelson's criticisms of the facsimiles are not credible. Baer's is. Cite him.


 * 1) 13 just another proof of sloppiness and non-documentation. No attack meant, just clean it up.


 * 1) 14 My point is that it was well-disseminated by 1842. Twenty years of research - perhaps some didn't know, but anyone who was a scholar, or was familiar with current events would have known.


 * 1) 15 - I responded to this in the section prior to my long "why they are wrong" discussion. Go back and read.


 * 1) 16 I can agree that more criticisms need to be added in, bu5t they need to be more recent than ten years ago, or 1912, which have been rebuffed and shown to be incorrect by scholars. Give some recent criticism, like those in some of the recent joseph smith conferences that actually have meet, or state, "these are out of date arguments popular on the internet and in the 1980s, and are not supported by current research or scholarship" If you want to qualify them, that is fine, but I can add in better and more recent and trustworthy criticism if you'd like, but what you have added that i've discussed doestn' cut it. Its like adding in three nephite legends or other mormon folklore (or anti-Mormon folklore) as factual. Cite and type.

Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to response
Hello Visorstuff, and happy holidays.

It seems that we've come to agreement in some areas (3,4,5,7,10,13,14) so I won't belabor those points.

But first things first: I'd love to see your idea of good critique. This should be fun. You say I should get some of this from the Joseph Smith Conferences. I believe you're referring to the conferences sponsored by BYU, the LDS church university? The conferences "Recognizing Joseph Smith's bicentennial. . . examin[ing] his historical, religious, social, and theological contributions"? Getting critique from there would be like asking the White House for criticism of the Iraq war. Or going to the Vatican in the 1640s and asking for critique of their decision to subject Galileo to the inquisition. Or...well, you get the idea.

1) As far as "purporting" goes, you're still miles away from convincing me this was a typo. And besides, canonized scripture IS a primary source; it's a primary source as regards current church doctrine, which I would think should mean something to you. It certainly means a lot to the 12 million or so Mormons, which is reason enough to use it.

2) Egyptologists who paid attention to the find: Again I never said anything about a "vast amount of non-LDS egyptologist interest." You're reading way too much into this.

6) You previously said about this point that "I could care less if this stayed. Probably a good deletion." I agree.

8) I already explained why I did this.

9) You assume too much. I certainly don't think that "everything that is 'cannonized' is perfect." But I do think that it represents official Church doctrine, and that's more than enough.

11) Numerous equals more than 10? I'd like to see your source on that. Also, a reference demonstrating that numerous cannot, under any circumstances, equal 4 would be helpful.

12) Sorry, not taking this one out. Again, It's a major criticism that has been made, and needs to be acknowledged. It's there for the sake of balance. And I got the information about the phallus, bird wing, etc., from Richard A. Parker, not Larson. And based on what I know about Parker's credentials vs. what I know about yours (professional wikipedia contributor?), I'm far more inclined to believe him. And I don't rely much on Larson either, so you can stop slandering him whenever you feel like it.

15) Deletion of "translation": Love ya too much to argue. But look, if you want "translation" back in then you need to change the sentence the quote is couched in so that it makes clear that the BOA is a translation of the papyri, and not that the papyri were a translation of something.

16) Refer to my opening statement.

So, closing arguments: I've cited my sources as you asked. But when are you going to start citing your sources? The peculiar thing about the BOA article is that it's almost completely devoid of citations. I hope you'll hold yourself to the same standard your asking of me. And please stop trying to nit-pick me to death. I'm not going away.

Oh, and I have to ask, when did producing more than 13 google hits become some sort of criterion of academic/scholarly achievement? You make me giggle.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for moderating your tone. Your first message to me was so full of the spirit of contention. It's nice that we can find points to agree on: accuracy, fairness, balance, truth. In the final analysis, what really needs to be applied to the BOA argument is Ockham's razor: The simples explanation is usually best. Like the followers of Ptolemy, we can add epicycles to epicycles, eccentrics to eccentrics, and equants to equants. But at some point you've got to realize that you're creating a monster, and devotion to truth has to supersede devotion to the institution. Good luck with that. (I know, I know, you're going to have something to say about this...don't take it personal).

Happy rebutting.


 * I'm not going to rebutt, rather I'll gather sources and change the article for the better. A few points that show your lack of understanding I'd like to clarify. First, I'm much more than a "professional wikipedia editor" but my privacy is more important than my credentials. Suffice it to say, I've been published. Have you?


 * You wrote: "I'd love to see your idea of good critique. This should be fun. You say I should get some of this from the Joseph Smith Conferences. I believe you're referring to the conferences sponsored by BYU, the LDS church university? The conferences "Recognizing Joseph Smith's bicentennial. . . examin[ing] his historical, religious, social, and theological contributions"? Getting critique from there would be like asking the White House for criticism of the Iraq war. ...well, you get the idea."


 * That is an insult to the non-LDS authors who have taken of their time to participate and critique Smith at these forums. Instead of attacking them, you should actually listen to them. You simply discount research based on where it comes from. Do you discount anti-mormon web sites becasue it will never give a balanced view either? Apparently not. Discussing how the book of Mormon was or was not a product of Smith's surroundings/environment/puritanism upbringing; how the Book of Abraham has problems when it comes to finding similar documents amoung other sources (are they a 1or2 century forgery, or a bad copy of a earlier document); whether or not teh BOA matches up too much to psuedo-jasher in addition to Jasher (even in neither was available); how smith was able to see similarities or derive masonic elements from the BOA for the temple ceremony; or the role of the Kinderhook plates; or the "secret teachings" given to the council of fifty and annointed quorum; or the role of the seer stone in treasure seeking; the problems of the similarities between the masonic legend of Hiram Abif and the story of the brass plates (is it an attempt to pick up where the legend left off?); the issues with the brass plates claimed authors and what current biblical scholars claim wrote the pentatuech; etc; hardly seem like "pro" LDS. Yes, conferences held at BYU tend to be pro-Mormon (in terms that they have more LDS scholars attend), but no scholar is going to give a "hail to the man" review of Smith who is not LDS (or they'd be baptized). That would not only ruin their reputation, but insult the academic community. You sit here and criticize that Mormons cannot be neutral, but yet in the same breath, you visit web sites that use B.H. Roberts discussion of issues with the BOM. Roberts, Nibley and most other mormon scholars are more than willing to say what probems there are. In an academic forum at the end of your research, you typically call for what new research needs to be doen to solve what problems. Of course you know this already, and I'm rehashing, right?


 * Oh wait, you reference Klaus Baer, Richard A. Parker, and John A. Wilson research on the BOA - and it comes from their publishing in the improvement era, dialogue and byu studies. You should probably discount it, no? Those sources are pro-LDS forums - the same as conferences at BYU, Library of Congress or by NON-LDS affilliated groups like the John Whitmer historical association. But that part of the argument doesn't suit your needs and I'll stop before I make this a soapbox.


 * In regard to #1 and #9, purporting is used in CoC (RLDS), FLDS and every other Latter Day Saint denomination except the LDS church. As this article is not about the "LDS church canon" or "official Church doctrine", but about Smith's book of Abraham. This is bigger than the LDS Church. See (the unhypenated) Latter Day Saint movement. Perhaps that's your problem. You think of the LDS church when you think of Mormonism. Let's use the original sources, as is wikipedia norm.


 * You have cited not sources. You have cited authors. Big difference. I have provided page numbers and web sites. You have not. If I were not familiar with the sources you cite, you'd be in trouble, as you have no idea which books/publications you are getting your info from. You have no credibility until you do.


 * As for my Google theory - if you are a scholar and not referenced on google on a subject you are supposedly an expert in, something's wrong. I come from an academincally-inclined family. Each of my five siblings or their spouses are in academia or are published in a scholarly forum (aside from masters' or doctoral work). Every one of my neices and nephews that have been to, or through college, you can find their research on google. If you publish on a topic, it should be there. If not, most universities would question your research capabilities and not renew contracts or grant tenure. It amazes me to think you think a current "expert" has never been referenced or quoted by another scholar in an academic forum and therefore is absent from google. Nearly every conference in existence lists its proceedings on the web, and therefore on google. To say they are not in google is to say they are not published. Even Larson, who you say I've attacked, gets more hits on google, and he doesn't have credentials. I have not attacked him, but rather his research methodology, as it is not academic, nor qualified to properly tackle the issues he tackles, that it took three different men under Nibley's push to comment on - all without complete agreement - yet he comes to the final conclusion.


 * I will work over the next few weeks to imporve the article, provide sources, AND provide criticism from the current state of research. I do hope you stay around. I'd suggest that you branch out and edit other articles to build a reputation on wikipedia. We need more good editors. As an admin, I welcome you. Hope to see you around. For now I'm done, but will make changes shortly. No response needed at this point. -Visorstuff 17:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Visorstuff,

I know you didn't request this response, but I don't need your permission to continue the discussion.

1) Have I been published? Yes, and I'm so glad you asked. I also have a graduate degree in History.

2) I didn't insult anyone from the Joseph Smith Conferences, LDS or non. I simply said it was not the place to go for information critical of the Book of Abraham.

3) I know that google is a great place to find scholarly work. I was just poking fun at your arbirtary selection of the number thirteen. You don't seem to like it when I poke fun.

4) As for your forthcoming revisions: Glad to hear you'll be putting some effort into balancing this article. But remember that the creation of an article is a collaborative effort, that's what gives wikipedia balance. And you are NOT the sole arbiter of the BOA article, so you can stop talking like you are. Also, since this is a controversial issue, all viewpoints need to be represented, whether you are convinced by them or not. And I would specifically advise you not to remove the four points of criticism I added. They're there for balance.

I got the following from wikipedia's explanation on NPOV, you may want to keep it in mind as you make your changes:

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

-The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV) -While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. -Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance). -The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. -The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view. -A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives. -The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious. -Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms."

But I'm sure you know all that.

hasta la pasta, -wikipac


 * Wikipac. I am not claiming to be sole arbitrator or any article. I am claiming that I have provided sources, and you have not, and that I'm knowledgeable about the topic. As for my "arbirtary selection of the number thirteen" that is why I included a google search link (you may have noticed it) as a search on the author you listed, only comes up with 13 hits. A search on "Charles M. Larson", for example, produces 1580 hits, and Charles Larson Book Abraham produces "about 318,000." You wrote: "I didn't insult anyone from the Joseph Smith Conferences, LDS or non. I simply said it was not the place to go for information critical of the Book of Abraham." but you also compared them to "asking the White House for criticism of the Iraq war. Or going to the Vatican in the 1640s and asking for critique of their decision to subject Galileo to the inquisition." When a history-masters-degree-holder compares mormon and non-mormon scholars to the few oppressive and intolerant catholic's who lived in a dark period of history and killed people for their beliefs because I participated in a forum at BYU, I'd consider it an insult. I don't know who wouldn't.


 * As an admin on wikipedia, I'm fully aware of NPOV. I've been here for a few years. Thanks for the reminder, I don't think you can ever hear it enough. If you look at my edit history, you'll see collaboration, suggestions and both pro- and negative- comments included. I feel my role on wikipedia is not to make things "look good," but to ensure things are accurate. In fact, many of the LDS and Latter Day Saint movement editors here believe that the more information that is shared and not explained away the better. As for your "all viewpoints need to be represented" you are right. Theories such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism or Flat earth society need their place, as do cultural arguments, which is why we discussed leaving in some edits above, however, they do need the caveat that they are no longer believed by scholars, and are part of the Anti-Mormon or Ex-Mormon folklore, the same as Izapa Stela 5, Khirbet Beit Lei, or the hemispheric model, for which there is little evidence or even evidence to the contrary, but much belief by some LDS church members. Yes there is just as much ex-Mormon and Anti-Mormon "faith promoting rumors" (such as lifetime religiousity membership decline, or teenage pregnancy in utah, or suicide rates) as their is Mormon faith promoting rumors. Most people rarely check the facts or current scholarship, but rather, rely on "google" and cultural and incredible websites for info. By the way, a decent neutral site for Book of Abraham pros and cons is the Book of Abraham project, although it too is outdated in research, IMHO. Thanks for the reminder of NPOV. I'm sure the result of this conversation will be a much stronger, better article. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipac,
 * Just so that you know, you can sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) and it shows more information. There are editors (including me) to which it also shows that you have learned about and care about a certain minimum level of the Wikipedia culture.  When you show that you understand (and care about) these other things about Wikipedia culture, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously when you invoke Wikipedia policies, including (but not limited to) the Wikipedia policies on NPOV.  Val42 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Val42. I'm still in the learning process here. I'll try it now. Wikipac 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Visorstuff,

Here are my main sources (Merry Christmas, just what you wanted, right?):

1) Klaus Baer. “The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent Source of The Book of Abraham,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3 (3): 109. (Gives preliminary overview) 2) Wilson, John A. "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: A Summary Report," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3 (2): 67. (Dates the manuscripts as “after 500 B.C.”).

3) Parker, Richard A. "The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Preliminary Report," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3 (2): 86. (See this article for a discussion of Smith’s incorrect restoration and interpretation of facsimile 1.)

4) Thompson, Stephen E. “Egyptology and the Book of Abraham,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 28 (1): 143. (See this article for the discussion of anachronisms).

5) Smith, Milan D., Jr. “`That Is the Handwriting of Abraham.’” Dialogue 23 (4) Winter 1990: 167-169. (Offers evidence against the revelation theory and for translation, also discusses Egyptian Alphabet).

6) Ritner, Robert K. “The ‘Breathing Permit of Hôr’ Thirty-four Years Later.” Dialogue 33 (4) Winter 2000: 97-119 [p. 103, 106] (Another University of Chicago Egyptologist evaluating the Papyri, in the line of Breasted, Wilson, and Baer. Pretty sure these are all non-LDS Egyptologists).

7) Ashment, Edward H. “Joseph Smith’s Identification of ‘Abraham’ in Papyrus JS 1, ‘The Breathing Permit of Hor.’” Dialogue 33 (4) Winter 2000: 121. (Egyptian alphabet problems presented here).

8) Palmer, Grant H. An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. 2002. (Discusses probable sources of the Book of Abraham, i.e. Flavius Josephus, Genesis, and books by Thomas Dick and Thomas Taylor which discussed astronomy and theology similar to that in the BOA).

Again, whether you like the scholars, whether you are convinced by their arguments or not, their points need to be represented. I've gone beyond the call of duty here to provide you with sources where professional scholars, egyptologists, and historians make precisely the criticisms I inserted into the BOA article. This is far more than "folklore," and I have no reason to believe that you have credentials that surpass those of any of these authors, regardless of the knowledge you have on the subject. And thanks for the discussion, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Wikipac 04:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing sources that provide a "critique from...the White House for criticism of the Iraq war." I'm suprised. You take all of your sources from a Mormon-published journal, but they discount even more recent studies and criticisms at Conferences at BYU because it's like "going to the Vatican in the 1640s and asking for critique of their decision to subject Galileo to the inquisition." Your arguments are circular. I am familiar with the research (aside from #5, which I'll have to go back and re-read), and I'm still trying to find out which of your specific arguments come from each of them - but no matter. I find a quote here or there, but not in general lining up completely. And the first five are very outdated (between 15-40 year-old research), as I've already stated has been updated in some cases, or challenged in others. No matter. Thanks for the sources. -Visorstuff 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Visorstuff,

There are some pretty big differences between Dialogue (Independent quarterly) and the Joseph Smith conferences, but you really don't need to be so bothered by my remark. I didn't mean to offend. As for your comment that my "arguments are circular," thanks for the compliment! The Greeks considered the circle to be an expression of perfection and harmony, and I'm sure that's what you were getting at : )

Hasta lasagna, Wikipac 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)