Question for Mormons ?

Question

How can you still take the book of mormon serously when Egyptologists have now translated all the Joseph Smith papyri -- including the parts Joseph said could not yet be revealed -- and we can say without fear of contradiction that the materials have nothing to do with Abraham . They are delightfully pagan in nature, and nothing Jewish can be seen in them. They are part of the Book of Breathings -- a late abridgment of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. In fact, these papyri date from approximately the beginning of the Christian era and are about two thousand years too late to contain the autograph of Abraham!

Answer 1

I am sure you realize that the Book of Mormon is one book, and the Book of Abraham is another book. You are referring to translations that became a part of the Pearl of Great Price.

No one has the papyri that Joseph Smith used to write the Book of Abraham. Three papyri were discovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. They are called Joseph Smith Papyri I, XI, and X. Egyptologists have identified these three papyri as being the text of the Book of Breathings, an ancient Egyptian religious text. But did Joseph Smith attempt to translate these papyri? Evidently not. They are just three documents that were once in the possession of Joseph Smith, but are not the source of the Book of Abraham.

The evidence the critics have that indicates that these documents may have been the source of the Book of Abraham comes from some of the earliest manuscripts we have of the Book of Abraham. Some characters from the Book of Breathings are found in the margin of the Book of Abraham manuscripts. Neither the manuscripts, which are in English, nor the notes in the margin are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. Mostly they are in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parish. Clearly the Egyptian characters were added later by William W. Phelps and Warren Parrish, and cannot be a part of the translation process. Perhaps they were trying to see if these Egyptian characters fit with the Book of Abraham text, but they were unsuccessful in the attempt. They later fell away from the church, but they never claimed that they had been part of a fraudulent attempt of Joseph Smith to deceive the world. They never denounced Joseph Smith for this, as they surely would have if they could have.

We don't have the documents Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham.

Answer 2

While Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from real documents, we

really do not know the process he used to produce that translation.

Those who think the Book of Breathings was the source suggest that

groups of characters or figures serve as catalysts for chunks of

revealed truth. To me, it seems most reasonable to view the Book of

Abraham as a "translation" in the more conventional sense of the word

(though it was definitely performed through revelation). With that

assumption, the plausibility of Joseph's work is an important issue

I feel that the available evidence suggests two important points:

that the rediscovered papyri do not include all of the documents that

Joseph translated, and that they are not necessarily what Joseph used

to generate the Book of Abraham. The first point is indisputable,

while the second point is open to debate. Were there only two

scrolls? No. There were at least four scrolls and other documents as

well, including the Papyrus of Hor, the Papyrus of Semminis, the

Papyrus of Noufianoub, and the Papyrus of Amenophis The surviving

Joseph Smith papyri represent at most 13% of the original collection.

The Joseph Smith papyri contain fragments from three of the scrolls;

the Papyrus of Amenophis is known only from a partial copy
there are fascinating "direct hits" and "near hits" that Joseph makes

in his interpretation that simply were not possible for even a

scholar to do in the 1830s. However, Joseph's commentary has been

heavily condemned by many Egyptologists. In some cases, where Joseph

Smith was obviously close to plausible interpretations of symbols

based on modern knowledge, his critics amaze me by focusing on some

minor point that makes Joseph technically incorrect, in their view,

while avoiding the monumental question: "How did a farm boy in the

1830s even get close to interpreting a single symbol properly?" It

does not surprise or disappoint me that scholars can find fault with

Joseph's commentary, for there are many levels of meaning possible in

Egyptian symbolism. We still don't grasp much of what Egyptian

thought was all about among the multiple elite priestly groups who

kept many of the records, and without that understanding, it is hard

to assess the ultimate meaning intended by the author of a passage or

diagram. Egyptology is not an exact science like mathematics, but a

discipline involving fragmentary and mysterious records from an

ancient culture in which a given symbol or concept could mean many

things. I feel that the confirmations of plausibility for Joseph's

comments are strong enough that sincere seekers of truth ought to

marvel. Such confirmations do not and cannot prove the authenticity

of the Book of Abraham, but can disprove some criticisms and can show

that certain aspects are at least plausible.

Answer 3

An mormons out there

sounds very funny for a name

Answer 4

Mormons use the same method as all other Christians to explain their myths & legends.

"God did it."

Which ends any further discussion.

Christians whining about Mormons is similar to a bank robber whining that someone stole his car.

The very foundation of Christianity is based on myths, legends and lies.

Answer 5

To be honest, I don't know enough about Mormons... but this is interesting...