Difference between revisions of "Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Abraham"

(→‎"the sun gets its light from Kolob": m)
m (→‎top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}})
 
(224 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
+
{{Main Page}}
−
{{Resource Title|Response to "Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions"}}
+
{{Navigation:CES Letter}}
−
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
+
 
−
|title=[[../|Letter to a CES Director]]
+
{{Header}}
−
|author=
+
 
−
|noauthor=
+
[[File:Chart CES Letter book of abraham.png|center|frame]]
−
|section=Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
+
 
−
|previous=[[../First Vision Concerns & Questions|First Vision Concerns & Questions]]
+
Included below:
−
|next=[[../Polygamy & Polyandry Concerns & Questions|Polygamy/Polyandry Concerns & Questions]]
+
*[[#Response to claim: "scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated"|Response to claim: "scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
−
|notes=
+
*[[#Response to claim: "scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"|Response to claim: "scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text"|Response to claim: "Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"|Response to claim: "It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: Facsimile 1 "The Abraham scene is wrong"|Response to claim: Facsimile 1 "The Abraham scene is wrong"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"|Response to claim: "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "The following images show similar funerary scenes which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt"]|Response to claim: "The following images show similar funerary scenes which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists"|Response to claim: "a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "Joseph Smith said that this is 'God sitting on his throne'. It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex"|Response to claim: "Joseph Smith said that this is 'God sitting on his throne'. It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: Facsimile 3, "Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish"|Response to claim: Facsimile 3, "Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12."|Response to claim: "86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12."]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham?"|Response to claim: "Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham?"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "the sun gets its light from Kolob...The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star"|Response to claim: "the sun gets its light from Kolob...The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"|Response to claim: "There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"|Response to claim: "Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "Is 'I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God' really the best answer that a 'prophet, seer, and revelator' can come up with to such a profound problem?"|Response to claim: "Is 'I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God' really the best answer that a 'prophet, seer, and revelator' can come up with to such a profound problem?"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, October 2014
 +
*[[#Response to claim: "The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham"|Response to claim: "The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham"]] (from Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, October 2014
 +
*[[#Citation abuse in Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: B.H. Roberts comment on the Book of Abraham|Citation abuse in Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: B.H. Roberts comment on the Book of Abraham]] (from Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay
 +
*[[#LDS Truth Claims: The Book of Abraham|LDS Truth Claims: The Book of Abraham]]
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==Response to claim: "scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated
 +
}}
 +
{{misinformation|Scholars have found fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Among the fragments is the original for Book of Abraham Facsimile 1. The original papyri containing Facsimile 2 and Facsimile 3 is not among them. One cannot conclude that what we have today is the portion of the papyrus that Joseph translated.
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
  
 +
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
 +
*[[Question: What is the relationship of the Joseph Smith Papyri to the Book of Abraham?]]
 +
*[[Question: What happened to the papyri after Joseph's death?]]
 +
*[[Question: What do the Joseph Smith papyri fragments consist of?]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
  
−
{{Epigraph|The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.<br>&mdash;Introduction, ''Pearl of Great Price'' (2013 edition). {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/introduction?lang=eng}}
+
==Response to claim: "scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it.
 +
}}
 +
{{information|The papyri fragments recovered date to after the Abrahamic period. The biggest thing to differentiate is a text and a manuscript. An original text may be ancient or have elements that date to an earlier date and a manuscript may be a copy of a copy of a copy that go to a later date.  
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
−
{{parabreak}}
 
  
−
==Quick Navigation==
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#"scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"|Response to section: "scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"]]
+
*[[Gospel Topics: "The phrase can be understood to mean that Abraham is the author and not the literal copyist"]]
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#"It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"|Response to section: "It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"]]
+
*[[Question: Why does the Book of Abraham state that it was written by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus" if the papyri date to after the Abrahamic period?]]
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#Facsimile 1|Response to section: Facsimile 1]]
+
*[[Question: Is the phrase "by his own hand upon papyrus" an Egyptian title?]]
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#"The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"|Response to section: "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"]]
+
*[[Question: Is the phrase "by his own hand upon papyrus" a 19th century redaction?]]
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#Facsimile 2|Response to section: Facsimile 2]]
+
*[[Question: Did Joseph Smith believe that Abraham wrote the text on the papyrus himself?]]
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#Facsimile 3|Response to section: Facsimile 3]]
+
*[[Question: Since the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated date to the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, does this mean that the events recorded in the Book of Abraham cannot be historical?]]
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#"the sun gets its light from Kolob"|Response to section: "the sun gets its light from Kolob"]]
+
{{Back to top}}
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#"There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"|Response to section: "There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"]]
 
−
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions#"Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"|Response to section: "Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"]]
 
  
−
==Response Section==
+
==Response to claim: "Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text"==
−
===="scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"====
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
−
|claim=The author notes that, "scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it."
+
|claim=Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text for a deceased man named “Hor” in 1st century AD. In other words, it was a common Breathing Permit that the Egyptians buried with their dead.
−
|answer=
 
−
{{Church answer
 
−
|link=https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students-2014/section-7/unit-31-day-2-the-coming-forth-of-the-pearl-of-great-price?lang=eng
 
−
|title=Unit 31: Day 2, The Coming Forth of the Pearl of Great Price
 
−
|publication=Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students
 
−
|date=2013
 
−
|summary=In 1966, 11 fragments of papyri the Prophet Joseph Smith once had were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. These papyri contain authentic Egyptian writings, but they do not date to the time of Abraham, nor do they contain the actual personally handwritten account of Abraham. It is important to remember that only a few fragments and not all of the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed have been found. The book of Abraham may have been translated from papyri that have not been recovered. These lost papyri may have contained copies of Abraham’s writings.
 
−
<br>
 
−
At the present time we simply do not know the exact nature of the relationship between the book of Abraham and the papyri Joseph Smith possessed. There are various theories proposed as to how the prophet translated these writings, but we simply do not know the details. We do know that the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham by the gift and power of God.
 
 
}}
 
}}
−
*{{Correct}} The papyrus is dated much later than Abraham. Hugh Nibley suggested that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” was a part of the original title of the ancient text.
+
{{propaganda|
−
*{{Fact}} However, Kirtland Egyptian Paper (KEP) - A1 has the following caption: “Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt.”{{ref|fn.2}} This seems to indicate that the phrase "by his own hand upon papyrus" is a 19th century addition to the text by either Joseph Smith, or the two scribes in whose handwriting the documents are written in, viz., W. W. Phelps and Willard Richards, respectively. This is bolstered by the addition of the phrase “and found in the catacombs of Egypt” that appear in KEPA 1. The phrase "found in the catacombs of Egypt" would not have appeared on the papyrus itself.
+
|spin=The author words his statement in such a way as to make it sound as if this is a recent event, and that this discovery was forced to light by non-Mormon Egyptologists. This is not the case.
−
*{{Fact}} It is obvious from the historical data that Joseph Smith and the early brethren considered the scroll of Horos to be the source of the Book of Abraham (though not, as is argued by the critics, necessarily the Book of Breathings text).  
+
|facts=The Church announced in 1968 that the papryi fragments contained a funerary text in the official magazine, the ''Improvement Era''.  
−
*{{Answer}} It seems likely that the early brethren, when working with the papyrus, simply assumed that the papyrus in their possession was the actual document written "by the hand of Abraham." In other words, they would have thought that Abraham himself physically wrote on the papyrus in their possession. As Michael Ash explained, “it seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph may have believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating... Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham and it would have been natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri.”{{ref|fn.15}}
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
===="It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
*[[Gospel Topics on LDS.org: "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham"]]
−
|claim=The author claims that the Joseph Smith papyri "has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham."  
+
*[[Question: What is the relationship of the Joseph Smith Papyri to the Book of Abraham?]]
−
|answer=
+
*[[Question: What happened to the papyri after Joseph's death?]]
−
{{Church answer
+
*[[Question: What do the Joseph Smith papyri fragments consist of?]]
−
|link=https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students-2014/section-7/unit-31-day-2-the-coming-forth-of-the-pearl-of-great-price?lang=eng
+
{{Back to top}}
−
|title=Unit 31: Day 2, The Coming Forth of the Pearl of Great Price
+
 
−
|publication=Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students
+
==Response to claim: "It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"==
−
|date=2013
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
|summary=In 1966, 11 fragments of papyri the Prophet Joseph Smith once had were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. These papyri contain authentic Egyptian writings, but they do not date to the time of Abraham, nor do they contain the actual personally handwritten account of Abraham. It is important to remember that only a few fragments and not all of the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed have been found. The book of Abraham may have been translated from papyri that have not been recovered. These lost papyri may have contained copies of Abraham’s writings.
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
−
<br>
+
|claim=[The Joseph Smith papyri] has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham.  
−
At the present time we simply do not know the exact nature of the relationship between the book of Abraham and the papyri Joseph Smith possessed. There are various theories proposed as to how the prophet translated these writings, but we simply do not know the details. We do know that the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham by the gift and power of God.
 
 
}}
 
}}
−
*{{Fact}} Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocephalus hypocephalus] ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2]). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed.
+
{{information|The existing fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri are not related to the Book of Abraham with the exception of the original for Facsimile 1, a fact that the Church noted in 1968 in the official church magazine, the ''Improvement Era''. There is evidence that helps us associate the to Abraham and traditions about him.
−
*{{Fact}} The Egyptian characters on the recovered documents are a portion of the "Book of Breathings," an Egyptian religious text buried with mummies that instructed the dead on how to successfully reach the afterlife. This particular Book of Breathings was written for a deceased man named Hor, so it it usually called ''the Hor Book of Breathings''.
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
−
*{{Fact}} The extant fragments include the original Facsimile 1. The papyri containing Facsimile 2 and Facsimile 3 have never been recovered.
 
−
*{{Fact}} Other than the vignette represented in Facsimile 1, the material on the papyri received by the Church, at least from a standard Egyptological point of view, does not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham. This was discussed in the Church publication, the ''Improvement Era'' in January 1968. {{link|url=http://archive.org/stream/improvementera7101unse#page/n12/mode/1up}}
 
−
|quote=
 
−
*Scientist Henry Eyring (father of President Henry B. Eyring, counselor in the First Presidency) on the Book of Abraham:
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
An example of what I am talking about is the recent discovery of the papyrus scrolls from which Joseph Smith was presumed to have translated the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Modern scholars, looking at the scrolls, found nothing they considered to be similar to that book. I remarked at the time that such a finding didn't bother me in the least. God doesn't need a crib sheet in the form of a papyrus scroll to reveal Abraham's thoughts and words to Joseph Smith, with any degree of precision He considers necessary for His purposes. If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose.<br>
 
−
&mdash;Henry Eyring, ''Reflections of a Scientist'', p. 46
 
−
</blockquote>
 
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:IE Jan1968 cover.jpg|600 px]]
 
−
[[File:Egyptian.papyri.rediscovered.funeral.documents.improvement.era.jan.1968.p12.jpg|600 px]]
 
  
−
====Facsimile 1====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
 +
*[[Question: Was the Church forthright in identifying the rediscovered papyrus prior to their examination by non-LDS Egyptologists?]]
 +
*[[Improvement Era (January 1968): "Often the funerary texts contained passages from the 'Book of the Dead,' a book that was to assist in the safe passage of the dead person into the spirit world"]]
 +
*[[Question: What did the Church announce in 1968 when the Joseph Smith papyri fragments were discovered?]]
 +
*[[Question: How long did the Church know about the papyri before they published information about them?]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
  
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
==Response to claim: Facsimile 1 "The Abraham scene is wrong"==
−
|claim=The author claims that the Joseph Smith papyri "has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham." The letter then analyzes Facsimile 1, the "lion couch" scene, which Joseph claimed represents an illustration of an attempt to sacrifice Abraham.
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
|answer=
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
−
*{{Fact}} The scene represented by Facsimile 1, according to Egyptologists, represents the resurrection of Osiris. In this case, Joseph has used the image to illustrate the attempted sacrifice of Abraham.
+
|claim=The Abraham scene is wrong.
−
*{{Fact}} One point of interest is that another "lion couch" scene has been discovered which actually includes Abraham's name. Note that it does ''not'' claim that Abraham is the figure on the lion couch, and notes that "[t]he figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman." See John Gee, [https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts?lang=eng Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts] on lds.org (July 1992)
+
}}
−
*{{Fact}} Also of interest is some correlation between ''The Book of Abraham'' and the ''Apocalypse of Abraham'', a Jewish document composed between about 70–150 AD. The Apocalypse of Abraham describes the idolatry of Abraham's father in detail, and talks of how Abraham came to disbelieve in his father's gods. The following quotes describe how God told Abraham to leave his father's house so that he would not be destroyed.
+
{{misinformation| Facsimile 1 is one of the most studied and best attested of the facsimiles in antiquity.
−
*{{s||Abraham|1|15-17}}:
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
−
<blockquote>
 
−
15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;
 
−
<br><br>
 
−
16 <span style="color:blue">And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father’s house,</span> and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;
 
−
<br><br>
 
−
17 And this because they have turned their hearts away from me, to worship the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; therefore I have come down to visit them, and to destroy him who hath lifted up his hand against thee, Abraham, my son, to take away thy life.
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
*''The Apocalypse of Abraham'' {{link|url=http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/box.pdf}}
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
VIII. And it came to pass while I spake thus to my father Terah in the court of my house, there cometh down the voice of a Mighty One from heaven in a fiery cloud-burst, saying and crying: “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said: “Here am I.” And He said: “Thou art seeking in the understanding of thine heart the God of Gods and the Creator; I am He: <span style="color:blue">Go out from thy father Terah, and get thee out from the house, that thou also be not slain in the sins of thy father’s house.”</span> And I went out. And it came to pass when I went out, that before I succeeded in getting out in front of the door of the court, there came a sound of a [great] thunder and burnt him and his house, and everything whatsoever in his house, down to the ground, forty cubits.
 
−
</blockquote>
 
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:Lion.couch.scene.with.abrahams.name.Leiden.Papyrus.I.384.jpg|800 px]]
 
  
−
===="The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
=====The Charles Larson restoration of Facsimile 1=====
+
*[[Question: Do any of Joseph's explanations of Facsimile 1 agree with what Egyptologists say about the figures?]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
  
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
==Response to claim: "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"==
−
|claim=The author posts an image of a "restored" version of Facsimile 1 found in Charles Larson's book ''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri''. The author states "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt". The Larson restoration shows a second bird instead of a second hand on the reclining figure.
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
|answer=
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
−
*{{Incorrect}} The Charles Larson restoration of Facsimile 1 has a number of inaccuracies, which are noted by a ''non-Mormon'' Egyptologist.
+
|claim=[The Charles Larson restoration] is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt.
−
|quote=
+
|provenance=Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri Paperback'' (1992)
−
<blockquote>
+
}}
−
Let me state clearly at the outset my conviction that the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point. Ashment 1979, pp. 36, 41 (Illustration 13), is very balanced in his analysis of the problem, presenting compelling arguments for reading two hands; Gee 1992, p. 102 and n. 25, refers to Michael Lyon in describing the "thumb stroke" of the upper (right) hand; cf. Gee 2000, pp. 37-38; and Rhodes 2002, p. 19, concludes: "... a careful comparison of the traces with the hand below as well as the tip of the bird's wing to the right makes it quite clear that it is the other hand of the deceased."...An important clue is provided in the orientation of the thumbs of the upraised hands toward the face. This is the expected way of depicting the hands of mourners and others when they are held up to (both sides of) their heads or before their faces.<br>&mdash;(non-Mormon) Egyptologist Lanny Bell, "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,' the Mormon 'Book of Abraham,' and the Development of Egyptology in America,"  ''Egypt and Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University June 2005,'' (ed. Stephen E. Thompson), Department of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies, Brown University, 2008, p. 28.
+
{{disinformation|The Charles Larson restoration has a number of inaccuracies.
−
</blockquote>
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:Larson.restoration.comparison.to.original.hand.detail.1.jpg|800 px|Comparison of high resolution image of the Joseph Smith papyrus with Charles Larson restoration - detail of the "hand versus wing".]]
 
−
[[File:Hand.wing.comparison.1a.jpg|300 px|Rotation and comparison of the existing bird wing with the disputed section of the papyrus]]
 
  
−
==== ====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
*[[Question: Does Facsimile 1 show a hand? Or does it show the wing of a second bird?]]
−
|claim=The author posts an image of a "restored" version of Facsimile 1 found in Charles Larson's book ''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri''. The author states "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt". The Larson restoration shows a figure with a phallus.
+
*[[Bell: "the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand"]]
−
|answer=
+
*[[Question: Should the restoration of Facsimile 1 include a phallus?]]
−
*The Charles Larson restoration of Facsimile 1 has a number of inaccuracies, which are noted by a ''non-Mormon'' Egyptologist.
+
*[[Bell: "there would not be enough available space to restore the hand of Anubis, the erect phallus of the Osiris, and the body and wings of Isis"]]
−
|quote=
+
*[[Question: Was the original head of the priest in Facsimile 1 actually the jackal head of Anubis?]]
−
{{Incorrect}} This image should not be ithyphallic:
+
*[[Question: Was the priest depicted in Facsimile 1 holding a knife or some other object?]]
−
<blockquote>
+
{{Back to top}}
−
...the representation of an ithyphallic figure wearing a kilt would not be unparalleled. However, judging from the position of the erect phallus of the reclining kilted earth god Geb in a cosmological scene on Dynasty 21 Theban coffins now in Turin and Bristol, there would not be enough available space to restore the hand of Anubis, the erect phallus of the Osiris, and the body and wings of Isis in P.JS I: Anubis would have to be grasping the phallus himself and assisting Isis in alighting on it&mdash;which is unimaginable. . . .In this area, I believe the Parker-Baer-Ashment reconstruction (with its "implied" erect phallus) is seriously flawed.<br>(non Mormon) Egyptologist Lanny Bell, "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,'", p. 29
+
 
−
</blockquote>
+
==Response to claim: "The following images show similar funerary scenes which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=
 +
The following images shows <span style="color:blue">the same funeral scene</span> which has been discovered elsewhere in Egypt. (April 2013)<br>
 +
The following images show <span style="color:blue">similar funerary scenes</span> which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt. (October 2014)<br><br>
 +
Notice that the jackal-headed Egyptian god of death and afterlife Anubis is consistent in every funerary scene.<br><br>
 +
}}
 +
{{misinformation|
 +
|mistake=Facsimile 1 does not portray the preparation of a mummy by Anubis - the figure on the "lion couch" is alive and is wearing clothes.
 +
|facts=This type of scene is interpreted as the resurrection of Osiris. It therefore is not the "same funeral scene" that is illustrated elsewhere.  
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:Larson.restoration.comparison.to.original.skirt.detail.jpg|800 px|Comparison of high resolution image of the Joseph Smith papyrus with Charles Larson restoration - kilt detail]]
 
  
−
==== ====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
*[[Question: Is Joseph Smith papyri Facsimile 1 common and similar to other such scenes?]]
−
|claim=The author posts an image of a "restored" version of Facsimile 1 found in Charles Larson's book ''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri''. The author states "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt". The Larson restoration shows a priest with the jackal head of Anubis.
+
*[[Question: What does the lion couch scene normally represent?]]
−
|answer=
+
*[[Gospel Topics: "Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles of the book of Abraham contain additional earmarks of the ancient world"]]
−
*{{Correct}} One thing that the Larson restoration likely got correct is that the head of the priest should have been the jackal head associated with Anubis.
+
*[[Question: What are the criticisms related to Facsimile 1?]]
 +
*[[Muhlestein and Gee: "It is now apparent that human sacrifice did indeed occur in ancient Egypt"]]
 +
*[[The Apocalypse of Abraham: "Go out from thy father Terah, and get thee out from the house, that thou also be not slain"]]
 +
*[[Book of Jubilees 12:1-8: "Abram said to Terah his father...What help and profit have we from those idols which thou dost worship...And his father said unto him...Keep silent, my son, lest they slay thee"]]
 +
*[[Muhlestein and Gee: "Sacrifice was a penalty for desecrating the sacred house of an Egyptian god"]]
 +
*[[Peterson: "the identification of a crocodile as the idolatrous god of Pharaoh...Unas’ pyramid texts, includes the following: 'The king appears as the crocodile god Sobek'"]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
 
 +
==Response to claim: "a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=The following ["mormoninfographic"] is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology.
 +
}}
 +
{{information| We don't know everything about facsimile 2 and how it was supposed to be translated. For now, we see that Joseph appears to have gotten a few things right.
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:Larson.restoration.anubis.2.jpg|800 px]]
 
  
−
==== ====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
*[[Question: Did Joseph Smith identify any elements of Facsimile 2 that are in agreement with what Egyptologists say they represent?]]
−
|claim=The author states, regarding Facsimile 1: "The following images shows the same funeral scene which has been discovered elsewhere in Egypt.  Notice that the jackal-headed Egyptian god Anubis is consistent in every funerary scene."
+
{{Back to top}}
−
|answer=
+
 
−
*{{Correct}} We agree that Facsimile 1 likely had the jackal head of Anubis rather than the human head, which appears to have been copied from the reclining figure.
+
==Response to claim: "Joseph Smith said that this is 'God sitting on his throne'.  It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex"==
−
*{{Fact}}Missing sections of the Facsimiles were filled in before their publication in the newspaper. We do not know if Joseph Smith directed the "restoration" of the missing sections, or if it was done by the engraver, Reuben Hedlock.
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
*{{Incorrect}}However, we do not agree that it is the "same funeral scene." Facsimile 1 actually depicts the resurrection of Osiris. The figure on the couch is alive. The figures to which it is compared all show the preparation of a mummy.
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7. Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…”  It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex.  Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure).  In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne.
 +
}}
 +
{{propaganda|
 +
|spin=This is a point of mockery used by critics because they know that it offends 21st century sensibilities regarding the manner in which we ought to portray God.
 +
|facts=This wasn't a big issue as far as the Egyptians were concerned.
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:Mummy.fac.1.comparison.jpg|600px]]
 
−
[[File:Lion couch scene at the louvre.jpg|600px]]
 
  
−
====Facsimile 2====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
*[[Question: If modern Egyptologists say that this is a representation of Min, and Min is a “pagan” God, how could Joseph Smith say that it represents God sitting on his throne?]]
−
|claim=The author examines Facsimile 2 and compares the way the Joseph and Egyptologists have interpreted the figures.
+
*[[Question: Is the representation of Min actually Egyptian "pornography"?]]
−
|answer=
+
*[[Question: Who is this Egyptian god "Min"?]]
−
*{{Fact}}It should be noted that portions of the original Facsimile 2 appear to have been missing, and that the missing portions were filled in with characters or images taken from other sources before the image was published in the ''Times and Seasons''. Some material was copied from the Joseph Smith papyri. Among the missing sections may have been the area identified as section #3, which matches a figure which appears on Joseph Smith Papyrus IV.
+
{{Back to top}}
−
*{{Fact}}One interesting thing about this restoration is that the figure in the bark boat actually does appear in this section of at least one other hypocephalus.
 
−
}}
 
−
[[File:Hypocephalus.split.3D.1.jpg| 600 px]]
 
−
[[File:Hawk-headed.god.Re.in.Joseph.Smith.Papyri.jpg|500 px]]
 
  
−
====Facsimile 3====
+
==Response to claim: Facsimile 3, "Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish"==
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
|claim=The author notes, "Egyptologists state that Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish and have absolutely nothing to do with what the papyri and facsimiles actually are and what they actually say....Facsimile #3:
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=Egyptologists state that Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish and have absolutely nothing to do with what the papyri and facsimiles actually are and what they actually say....Facsimile #3:
 
<br>Joseph misidentifies the Egyptian god Osiris as Abraham.
 
<br>Joseph misidentifies the Egyptian god Osiris as Abraham.
 
<br>Misidentifies the Egyptian god Isis as the Pharaoh.
 
<br>Misidentifies the Egyptian god Isis as the Pharaoh.
Line 163: Line 193:
 
<br>Misidentifies the dead Hor as a waiter.
 
<br>Misidentifies the dead Hor as a waiter.
 
<br>Joseph misidentifies – twice – a female as a male.
 
<br>Joseph misidentifies – twice – a female as a male.
−
|answer=
+
}}
−
*{{Fact}}It is quite easy to identify the two female figures in the drawing.
+
{{propaganda|
−
*{{Answer}}Joseph Smith would obviously also have noted that these figures were female, so it does raise a good question: Why would he deliberately identify two female figures as male? We do not know the answer to this, however, it does suggest that Joseph was using the existing image to illustrate a concept. Robert K. Ritner, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, states that "Smith’s hopeless translation also turns the goddess Maat into a male prince, the papyrus owner into a waiter, and the black jackal Anubis into a Negro slave."{{ref|ritner.162n4}} Larry E. Morris notes the following in response to criticism leveled by Professor Ritner at the Book of Abraham,
+
|spin=The fact that Joseph deliberately identified two female figures as male should provide a clue to the fact that he was applying a parallel interpretation to the figure, and that it won't match what Egyptologists would produce.  
−
<blockquote>
+
|facts=It is significant, however, that Joseph correctly notes two concepts that are present in other ancient texts: Abraham being seated next to Pharoah, and that Abraham taught the Egyptians astronomy. Another cool evidence for the Facsimile can be read about [https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/shulem-one-of-the-kings-principal-waiters/ here].
−
Furthermore, Ritner does not inform his readers that certain elements of the Book of Abraham also appear in ancient or medieval texts. Take, for example, Facsimile 3, which depicts, as Ritner puts it, "enthroned Abraham lecturing the male Pharaoh (actually enthroned Osiris with the female Isis)" (JNES, p. 162). In what Ritner describes as nonsense, Joseph Smith claimed that Abraham is "sitting upon Pharoah's throne . . . reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy" (Facsimile 3, explanation).  
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
−
<br><br>
 
−
Clearly, Joseph Smith's interpretation did not come from Genesis (where there is no discussion of Abraham doing such a thing). From Ritner's point of view, therefore, this must qualify as one of Joseph's "uninspired fantasies." But going a layer deeper reveals interesting complexities. A number of ancient texts, for example, state that Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians. Citing the Jewish writer Artapanus (who lived prior to the first century BC), a fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius, states: "They were called Hebrews after Abraham. [Artapanus] says that the latter came to Egypt with all his household to the Egyptian king Pharethothes, and taught him astrology, that he remained there twenty years and then departed again for the regions of Syria."22
 
−
<br><br>
 
−
As for Abraham sitting on a king's throne—another detail not mentioned in Genesis—note this example from Qisas al-Anbiya' (Stories of the Prophets), an Islamic text compiled in AD 1310: "The chamberlain brought Abraham to the king. The king looked at Abraham; he was good looking and handsome. The king honoured Abraham and seated him at his side."23 {{ref|morris1}}
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
*Morris concludes,
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
Ritner may counter that such parallels do not establish the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. That is true, but certainly they deserve some mention. At the very least, these parallels show that "all of this nonsense" is not really an appropriate description of Joseph Smith's interpretation. Fairness demands that Ritner, in his dismissal of the content of the Book of Abraham, at least mention similarities between it and other texts about Abraham and point readers to other sources of information. {{ref|morris2}}
 
−
</blockquote>
 
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
[[Image:Facsimile3.jpg|500px]]
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
 +
*[[Question: What are the criticisms related to Facsimile 3?]]
 +
*[[Question: What is the correct interpretation of Facsimile 3?]]
 +
*[[Question: What have been the responses to Joseph's interpretations of Facsimile 3?]]
 +
*[[Question: Are there any known parallels between elements of Joseph's interpretation of Facsimile 3 with other ancient texts?]]
 +
*[[Question: What are the criticisms regarding Joseph's interpretation of specific textual elements of Facsimile 3?]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
  
−
==== ====
+
==Response to claim: "86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12."==
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
|claim=The author states, "The following is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology." The letter displays a graphic from "mormoninfographics.com" called "The Book of Abraham - Hypocephalus, a funerary amulet," which compares Joseph Smith's interpretations of elements of Facsimile 2 with those provided by Egyptologists.
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
−
|answer=
+
|claim=5. 86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12.  Sixty-six out of seventy-seven verses are quotations or close paraphrases of King James Version wording. – An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins , p.19 
−
*{{Correct}}The graphic notes that Joseph may have gotten an element correct: "there is some agreement."
+
<br>
 +
The Book of Abraham is supposed to be an ancient text written thousands of years ago “by his own hand upon papyrus.”  What are 17th century King James Version text doing in there?  What does this say about the book being anciently written by Abraham?
 +
}}
 +
{{misinformation|There are significant differences in both text and narrative between the Genesis and Book of Abraham accounts of Abraham's life. Both narratives contain earmarks of antiquity. We have already responded to the author's question about "by his own hand on papyrus". KJV text can be included as part of the Book of Abraham as a functionally sufficient translation. That is, it can accomplish the purpose that God and Joseph Smith have for it adequately.
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:Mormoninfographic.facsimile2.sons.of.horus.jpg|600 px]]
 
  
−
==== ====
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
*[[Question: What are the differences between Genesis 11-12 and Abraham 2?]]
−
|claim=The author states, "One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7.  Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…”  It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex.  Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure).  In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne."
+
*[[Question: What are the differences between the Genesis account of creation and that of the Book of Abraham?]]
−
|answer=
+
{{Back to top}}
−
*{{Answer}}The Egyptians had multiple gods, each representing a particular characteristic. Latter-day Saints, (and Christians in general), on the other hand, worship one God, who encompasses all characteristics. Thus, Joseph could have identified ''any'' Egyptian god in Facsimile 2 as "God, sitting on his throne," not just Min. He does, in fact, also identify the hawk-headed god Re in the exact same manner. The is no Egyptian representation of the God that we know as "God the Father."
+
 
−
*With regard to the nudity (and the phallus in particular), the Egyptians had no cultural reservations about depicting nudity, unlike our current society. Therefore, the depiction of Min and his phallus is used by critics to create an absurdity: that Joseph would dare to associate such a figure with God the Father. To ancient Egyptians, however, there would have been no absurdity in doing so. Joseph simply equated both the god Re and the god Min with "God sitting on his throne."
+
==Response to claim: "Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham?"==
−
*References in the figure below are to Michael D. Rhodes, "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus . . . Twenty Years Later." {{link|url=http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf}}
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham?  Chaldeans?  Egyptus?  Pharaoh?  Abraham refers to the facsimiles in 1:12 and 1:14. These facsimiles did not exist in Abraham’s time as they are 1st century CE pagan Egyptian funerary documents.  
 
}}
 
}}
−
[[File:Mormoninfographic.min.the.ithyphallic.god.jpg|900 px]]
+
{{misinformation| There are ways to understand alleged anachronisms in the Book of Abraham if we are open to it not representing, in every single respect, at this very moment, a first-person narrative written by the historic Abraham himself.
−
<!--
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
−
==== ====
+
}}
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
 
−
|claim=The author states, "One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7.  Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…”  It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex.  Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure).  In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne."
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
|answer=
+
*[[Question: Why would the Book of Abraham contain anachronisms?]]
−
*Note also the Wikipedia definition of the "Eye of Horus" (also called the "Wedjat" eye): "The Eye of Horus is an ancient Egyptian symbol of protection, royal power and good health." Joseph consistently associated this symbol with the "grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood."
+
*[[Question: Is the mention of "Ur of the Chaldees" in the Book of Abraham an anachronism?]]
−
*References in the figure below are to Michael D. Rhodes, "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus . . . Twenty Years Later." {{link|url=http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf}}
+
*[[Paul Hoskisson (1991): "I will suggest an alternate location for the Ur of the Chaldees in the story of Abraham"]]
−
}} -->
+
*[[John Gee: "If Oylum Hoyuk is Olishem, the Ur of the Chaldees should be one of the dozens of Middle Bronze II sites in the Kilis plain"]]
 +
*[[Question: Are the scenes contained in the facsimiles anachronistic to the time of Abraham?]]
 +
*[[Question: Are the statements of Abraham 1:12,14 about the altar and Gods at the “beginning of the record” significant for the Book of Abraham?]]
 +
*[[Question: Is the name "Pharaoh" anachronistic to the time of Abraham?]]
 +
*[[Question: Is the mention of Egyptus anachronistic to the time of Abraham?]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
 
 +
==Response to claim: "the sun gets its light from Kolob...The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=
 +
Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun <span style="color:blue">gets</span> its light from Kolob. (April 2013)<br>
 +
Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun <span style="color:blue">receives</span> its “light from <span style="color:blue">the revolutions of</span> Kolob.” (October 2014)<br><br>
  
−
===="the sun gets its light from Kolob"====
+
We now know that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal, and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star as claimed by the Book of Abraham.  
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
}}
−
|claim=The author states, "Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun gets its light from Kolob.  We now know that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal, and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star as claimed by the Book of Abraham."
+
{{misinformation|The Book of Abraham does not state that the sun "gets it light" or "receives its light" from Kolob or from "from any other star." It states that the sun will "borrow its light from Kolob". It is not talking about actual light in the form of photons. It is certainly not disputing the notion that photons are emitted from the Sun.
−
|answer=
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
−
*Here is the explanation offered for Figure #5 Facsimile 2:
+
}}
−
<blockquote>
+
{{strawman|
−
Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.
+
*The author avoids the implications of the term "borrow," which has nothing to do with visible light in the form of photons.  
−
</blockquote>
+
*The author incorrectly reinterprets the argument to the Sun "getting" or "receiving" light from Kolob.
−
*{{Incorrect}}The author claims that the Book of Abraham teaches that "the sun ''gets'' it light from Kolob." This is incorrect. The actual explanation offered by Joseph states that it "is said by the ''Egyptians'' to be the Sun, and to ''borrow'' its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash." Joseph is claiming that the ''Egyptians'' believe this. It is nonsense to infer that Latter-day Saints believe or even ought to believe that Abraham taught that the photons leaving the surface of our sun originally came from Kolob.  
+
*The author refutes his own simplified assertion.
−
*There are many scriptures or statements by the prophets that seem to have scientific implications. Unfortunately, they are never couched in modern scientific terms and their meanings are often very obscure. The wording of Joseph Smith’s explanation of Figure 5 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham is, in fact, very difficult to interpret. Some of the challenges are:
 
−
#To “borrow” means to receive with the intention of returning, especially said of a material object or substance. Does the Sun intend to repay the light it borrowed?
 
−
#What is meant by 'light' in this context? Is it the light of Christ?
 
−
#A “medium” can mean a material through which some signal propagates or a means or channel through which something is achieved. What does it mean here? Does it refer to a material or a means?
 
−
#What is Kae-e-vanrash? The Book of Abraham says that it is a “grand Key,” or “governing power.” What does that mean? Is Kae-e-vanrash a term for nuclear reactions, gravitation, cosmic rays? Or is it a more spiritual medium such as priesthood or faith, or an organizational structure, or a means used for administrative communications?
 
−
*{{Answer}}And, finally, what are we to understand about the nature of Book of Abraham astronomy? Is it a revelation from God to Abraham explaining the structure of the universe as it would be seen by the astronomers of our day? Or should we remember that “The Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.” {{scripture||Abraham|3|15}}, so that, as John Gee has suggested ([http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-the-larger-issue "The Larger Issue"]), this is simply the teaching that would be easiest for the Egyptians to understand &mdash; one that would teach them that Elohim, who dwells near Kolob, rules over than the sun-god, Amen-Re?
 
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
===="There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"====
+
 
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
|claim=The author claims that the Book of Abraham may be based upon ideas presented in Thomas Dick's book ''Philosophy of a Future State.'' The author states that "Joseph Smith owned a copy of the book and Oliver Cowdery quoted some lengthy excerpts from the book in the December 1836 Messenger and Advocate."  
+
*[[Question: What is the light which comes from the presence of God?]]
−
|answer=
+
*[[Question: Does the Book of Abraham state that the sun gets its photons from Kolob?]]
−
*{{Answer}}Many of the ideas promoted by Thomas Dick were common Protestant beliefs and were therefore available without having to read Dick’s work. Joseph Smith never made any public or written statements indicating that he was aware of or that he had ever read Dick’s book. The only evidence that even suggests the possibility is circumstantial and is based upon the appearance of several passages from ''A Philosophy of a Future State'' in the ''Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate''.  
+
{{Back to top}}
−
*More importantly, Joseph Smith rejected or contradicted many of the ideas put forth by Dick in ''A Philosophy of a Future State''. It is therefore unlikely, contrary to Fawn Brodie’s speculation in her book ''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'', that Joseph had been “recently reading” Dick’s work and that it made a “lasting impression” upon the Prophet.
+
 
−
|link=Book of Abraham/Plagiarism accusations/Thomas Dick
+
==Response to claim: "There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"==
−
|subject=''Philosophy of a Future State'' by Thomas Dick
+
{{IndexClaimItemShort
−
|summary=It is claimed that Joseph Smith's theology as described in the Book of Abraham was influenced by Thomas Dick's book The Philosophy of a Future State.
+
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=Joseph Smith owned a copy of the book [Thomas Dick's book ''Philosophy of a Future State.''] and Oliver Cowdery quoted some lengthy excerpts from the book in the December 1836 Messenger and Advocate."  
 +
|provenance2=Fawn Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'', 171
 +
|provenance=Grant Palmer, ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'', 22-24
 +
}}
 +
{{propaganda|Joseph owned the book, but there is no evidence that it was used in the dictation of the Book of Abraham. Critics of the Church try to infer a connection without any evidence. There is, in fact, evidence of contrasting views.
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 +
}}
 +
{{false cause|
 +
*The author notes that Joseph Smith owned a copy of Thomas Dick's book ''Philosophy of a Future State''.
 +
*The author concludes that Joseph must have used the book in the creation of the Book of Abraham.
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
===="Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"====
+
 
−
{{CESLetterItem
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
|claim=The author states, "Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview:<br>
+
*[[Question: Could Joseph Smith's theology as described in the Book of Abraham have been influenced by Thomas Dick's book The Philosophy of a Future State?]]
 +
*[[Question: How do the theological concepts of Joseph Smith actually compare to those of Thomas Dick?]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
 
 +
==Response to claim: "Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision)
 +
|claim=Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview:<br>
 
'''Sweeney''':  Mr. Smith got this papyri and he translated them and subsequently as the Egyptologists cracked the code something completely different…<br>
 
'''Sweeney''':  Mr. Smith got this papyri and he translated them and subsequently as the Egyptologists cracked the code something completely different…<br>
 
'''Holland''': (Interrupts) All I’m saying…all I’m saying is that what got translated got translated into the word of God.  The vehicle for that, I do not understand and don’t claim to know and know Egyptian.
 
'''Holland''': (Interrupts) All I’m saying…all I’m saying is that what got translated got translated into the word of God.  The vehicle for that, I do not understand and don’t claim to know and know Egyptian.
−
|answer=
+
|provenance=MormonThink article "The Book of Abraham"
−
{{Church answer
+
}}
−
|link=http://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
+
{{propaganda|
−
|title=The Book of Abraham
+
|spin=Critics of the Church constantly promote the idea that General Authorities are dishonest, yet they complain when one says "I don't claim to know".
−
|author=
+
|facts=Elder Holland was asked this question and honestly answered that he didn't understand the exact method by which the Book of Abraham was produced.
−
|publication=The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual
+
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
−
|date=2000
+
}}
−
|summary='''How Did the Prophet Translate the Ancient Writings?'''
+
 
−
<br>
+
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
−
The Prophet Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records. As with all other scriptures, a testimony of the truthfulness of these writings is primarily a matter of faith. The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power.
+
*[[Question: How did Elder Holland respond during a BBC interview when asked how the Book of Abraham was translated?]]
 +
*[[Parrish (1838): "I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Heiroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven"]]
 +
*[[John Whitmer: "Joseph the Seer saw these Record(s) and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records"]]
 +
*[[Woodruff (1842): "The Lord is Blessing Joseph with Power to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate through the urim & Thummim Ancient records & Hyeroglyphics as old as Abraham or Adam"]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
 
 +
==Response to claim: "Is 'I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God' really the best answer that a 'prophet, seer, and revelator' can come up with to such a profound problem?"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision)
 +
|claim=Is “I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God” really the best answer that a “prophet, seer, and revelator” can come up with to such a profound problem that is driving many members out of the Church?
 +
}}
 +
{{misinformation|
 +
|mistake=Elder Holland did not say anything equivalent to "I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God."
 +
|facts=Elder Holland said that "what got translated got translated into the word of God," meaning that he ''knows'' that Joseph received the text of the Book of Abraham through revelation. Elder Holland then stated that he did not know or understand "the vehicle for that," meaning that he does ''not know'' the exact method by which the revelation of the Book of Abraham was accomplished. Elder Holland believes that the Book of Abraham was revealed to Joseph - he does not claim to know the mechanism by which this was done.
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 +
}}
 +
{{strawman|
 +
*Elder Holland stated "what got translated got translated into the word of God" and that he did not claim to know or understand "the vehicle" by which it was translated.
 +
*The author restates and simplifies Elder Holland's position as "I don't know and I don't understand but it's the word of God."
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
 
 +
==Response to claim: "The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham"==
 +
{{IndexClaimItemShort
 +
|title=Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision)
 +
|claim=The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham
 +
}}
 +
{{misinformation|
 +
|mistake=The Church did not "concede" in its essay that "Joseph's translation of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what's in the Book of Abraham."
 +
|facts=The Church noted that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham." The Church actually acknowledged this in 1968 in the official Church magazine, the ''Improvement Era'', over 47 years ago. Since then it has received mention in the Ensign, it has been studied vigorously by scholars including Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Brian Hauglid, and others and published about in BYU studies, FARMS, and other organizations. Nibley's work has been available in Deseret Book. It's really not new.
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Book of Abraham Concerns & Questions
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
'''Longer response(s) to criticism:'''
 +
*[[Gospel Topics on LDS.org: "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham"]]
 +
*[[Question: What did the Church announce in 1968 when the Joseph Smith papyri fragments were discovered?]]
 +
*[[Book of Abraham/Publications on the Book of Abraham|Exhaustive Listing of Book of Abraham Publications]]
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
 
 +
==Citation abuse in ''Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay'': B.H. Roberts comment on the Book of Abraham==
 +
{{CESLetterCitationAbuse
 +
|citation=Elder B.H. Roberts, LDS Scholar and General Authority, ''Comprehensive History of the Church'' 2:138
 
}}
 
}}
−
*{{Fact}} The Church has known and publicly acknowledged in the ''Improvement Era'' that the papyri fragments do not match the text of the Book of Abraham since 1968 (for over 45 years). This isn't something new. Elder Holland knows this.
+
{{epigraph|“That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.”<br><br>
−
*{{Answer}}Elder Holland's statement is consistent with what the Church itself says on this subject in the ''The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual''. Elder Holland said "what got translated got translated into the word of God." The manual says, "The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power."
+
&mdash;Jonathan Swift
 
}}
 
}}
 +
{{:CitationAbuse:Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay:B.H. Roberts comment on the Book of Abraham}}
 +
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
==LDS Truth Claims: The Book of Abraham==
 +
<embedvideo service="youtube">o8KRay7kV9k</embedvideo>
 +
<embedvideo service="youtube">xPPH2G6-aGE</embedvideo>
 +
 +
 +
{{endnotes sources}}
 +
 +
 +
{{Back to top}}
 +
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 +
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
  
−
=={{Endnotes label}}==
+
[[es:La crítica del mormonismo/Documentos en línea/Carta a un Director del SEI/Inquietudes y Preguntas del Libro de Abraham]]
−
#{{note|fn.2}} {{Nibley18|pages=546}}
+
[[pt:A crítica do mormonismo/Documentos online/Carta a um Diretor SEI/Livro de Abraão - preocupações e perguntas]]
−
#{{note|fn.15}} Michael Ash, “Book of Abraham 201: Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology”, presented at the 2006 FAIR Conference. {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Book_of_Abraham_201.html}} (Accessed 29 August, 2009).
 
−
#{{note|ritner.162n4}}Robert K. Ritner, “The Breathing Permit of Hor Among the Joseph Smith Papyri," ''Journal of Near Eastern Studies'', (University of Chicago, 2003), p. 162, note 4. Dr. Ritner is one of Dr. John Gee's former professors at Yale. Ritner's article in the ''Journal of Near eastern Studies'' is highly critical of his former student's involvement with any LDS apologetic effort on the part of the Book of Abraham, specifically because he was not included in a peer review.
 
−
#{{note|morris1}}{{FR-16-2-18}}
 
−
#{{note|morris2}}{{FR-16-2-18}}
 

Latest revision as of 14:21, 13 April 2024

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Articles about the CES Letter
Overview
Brief responses and additional resources, CES Letter sections
Detailed responses, CES Letter sections

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Abraham
Chart CES Letter book of abraham.png

Included below:


Response to claim: "scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Scholars have found fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Among the fragments is the original for Book of Abraham Facsimile 1. The original papyri containing Facsimile 2 and Facsimile 3 is not among them. One cannot conclude that what we have today is the portion of the papyrus that Joseph translated.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The papyri fragments recovered date to after the Abrahamic period. The biggest thing to differentiate is a text and a manuscript. An original text may be ancient or have elements that date to an earlier date and a manuscript may be a copy of a copy of a copy that go to a later date.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text for a deceased man named “Hor” in 1st century AD. In other words, it was a common Breathing Permit that the Egyptians buried with their dead.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author words his statement in such a way as to make it sound as if this is a recent event, and that this discovery was forced to light by non-Mormon Egyptologists. This is not the case.The facts: The Church announced in 1968 that the papryi fragments contained a funerary text in the official magazine, the Improvement Era.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

[The Joseph Smith papyri] has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The existing fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri are not related to the Book of Abraham with the exception of the original for Facsimile 1, a fact that the Church noted in 1968 in the official church magazine, the Improvement Era. There is evidence that helps us associate the to Abraham and traditions about him.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: Facsimile 1 "The Abraham scene is wrong"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The Abraham scene is wrong.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Facsimile 1 is one of the most studied and best attested of the facsimiles in antiquity.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

[The Charles Larson restoration] is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The Charles Larson restoration has a number of inaccuracies.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The following images show similar funerary scenes which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The following images shows the same funeral scene which has been discovered elsewhere in Egypt. (April 2013)

The following images show similar funerary scenes which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt. (October 2014)

Notice that the jackal-headed Egyptian god of death and afterlife Anubis is consistent in every funerary scene.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Facsimile 1 does not portray the preparation of a mummy by Anubis - the figure on the "lion couch" is alive and is wearing clothes.The facts: This type of scene is interpreted as the resurrection of Osiris. It therefore is not the "same funeral scene" that is illustrated elsewhere.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The following ["mormoninfographic"] is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

We don't know everything about facsimile 2 and how it was supposed to be translated. For now, we see that Joseph appears to have gotten a few things right.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith said that this is 'God sitting on his throne'. It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7. Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…” It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex. Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure). In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: This is a point of mockery used by critics because they know that it offends 21st century sensibilities regarding the manner in which we ought to portray God.The facts: This wasn't a big issue as far as the Egyptians were concerned.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: Facsimile 3, "Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Egyptologists state that Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish and have absolutely nothing to do with what the papyri and facsimiles actually are and what they actually say....Facsimile #3:


Joseph misidentifies the Egyptian god Osiris as Abraham.
Misidentifies the Egyptian god Isis as the Pharaoh.
Misidentifies the Egyptian god Maat as the Prince of the Pharaoh.
Misidentifies the Egyptian god Anubis as a slave.
Misidentifies the dead Hor as a waiter.


Joseph misidentifies – twice – a female as a male.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The fact that Joseph deliberately identified two female figures as male should provide a clue to the fact that he was applying a parallel interpretation to the figure, and that it won't match what Egyptologists would produce.The facts: It is significant, however, that Joseph correctly notes two concepts that are present in other ancient texts: Abraham being seated next to Pharoah, and that Abraham taught the Egyptians astronomy. Another cool evidence for the Facsimile can be read about here.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12."

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

5. 86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12. Sixty-six out of seventy-seven verses are quotations or close paraphrases of King James Version wording. – An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins , p.19


The Book of Abraham is supposed to be an ancient text written thousands of years ago “by his own hand upon papyrus.” What are 17th century King James Version text doing in there? What does this say about the book being anciently written by Abraham?

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There are significant differences in both text and narrative between the Genesis and Book of Abraham accounts of Abraham's life. Both narratives contain earmarks of antiquity. We have already responded to the author's question about "by his own hand on papyrus". KJV text can be included as part of the Book of Abraham as a functionally sufficient translation. That is, it can accomplish the purpose that God and Joseph Smith have for it adequately.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham? Chaldeans? Egyptus? Pharaoh? Abraham refers to the facsimiles in 1:12 and 1:14. These facsimiles did not exist in Abraham’s time as they are 1st century CE pagan Egyptian funerary documents.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There are ways to understand alleged anachronisms in the Book of Abraham if we are open to it not representing, in every single respect, at this very moment, a first-person narrative written by the historic Abraham himself.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "the sun gets its light from Kolob...The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun gets its light from Kolob. (April 2013)

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun receives its “light from the revolutions of Kolob.” (October 2014)

We now know that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal, and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star as claimed by the Book of Abraham.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Book of Abraham does not state that the sun "gets it light" or "receives its light" from Kolob or from "from any other star." It states that the sun will "borrow its light from Kolob". It is not talking about actual light in the form of photons. It is certainly not disputing the notion that photons are emitted from the Sun.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

  • The author avoids the implications of the term "borrow," which has nothing to do with visible light in the form of photons.
  • The author incorrectly reinterprets the argument to the Sun "getting" or "receiving" light from Kolob.
  • The author refutes his own simplified assertion.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith owned a copy of the book [Thomas Dick's book Philosophy of a Future State.] and Oliver Cowdery quoted some lengthy excerpts from the book in the December 1836 Messenger and Advocate."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Joseph owned the book, but there is no evidence that it was used in the dictation of the Book of Abraham. Critics of the Church try to infer a connection without any evidence. There is, in fact, evidence of contrasting views.

Logical Fallacy: False Cause—The author assumes that a real or perceived relationship between two events means that one caused the other.

  • The author notes that Joseph Smith owned a copy of Thomas Dick's book Philosophy of a Future State.
  • The author concludes that Joseph must have used the book in the creation of the Book of Abraham.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview:

Sweeney: Mr. Smith got this papyri and he translated them and subsequently as the Egyptologists cracked the code something completely different…

Holland: (Interrupts) All I’m saying…all I’m saying is that what got translated got translated into the word of God. The vehicle for that, I do not understand and don’t claim to know and know Egyptian.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: Critics of the Church constantly promote the idea that General Authorities are dishonest, yet they complain when one says "I don't claim to know".The facts: Elder Holland was asked this question and honestly answered that he didn't understand the exact method by which the Book of Abraham was produced.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Is 'I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God' really the best answer that a 'prophet, seer, and revelator' can come up with to such a profound problem?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Is “I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God” really the best answer that a “prophet, seer, and revelator” can come up with to such a profound problem that is driving many members out of the Church?

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Elder Holland did not say anything equivalent to "I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God."The facts: Elder Holland said that "what got translated got translated into the word of God," meaning that he knows that Joseph received the text of the Book of Abraham through revelation. Elder Holland then stated that he did not know or understand "the vehicle for that," meaning that he does not know the exact method by which the revelation of the Book of Abraham was accomplished. Elder Holland believes that the Book of Abraham was revealed to Joseph - he does not claim to know the mechanism by which this was done.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

  • Elder Holland stated "what got translated got translated into the word of God" and that he did not claim to know or understand "the vehicle" by which it was translated.
  • The author restates and simplifies Elder Holland's position as "I don't know and I don't understand but it's the word of God."

Response to claim: "The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The Church did not "concede" in its essay that "Joseph's translation of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what's in the Book of Abraham."The facts: The Church noted that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham." The Church actually acknowledged this in 1968 in the official Church magazine, the Improvement Era, over 47 years ago. Since then it has received mention in the Ensign, it has been studied vigorously by scholars including Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Brian Hauglid, and others and published about in BYU studies, FARMS, and other organizations. Nibley's work has been available in Deseret Book. It's really not new.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Citation abuse in Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: B.H. Roberts comment on the Book of Abraham

Citation abuse in the "Letter to a CES Director":

"Elder B.H. Roberts, LDS Scholar and General Authority, Comprehensive History of the Church 2:138"

FairMormon Response


“That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.”

—Jonathan Swift

Question: Why did the author of the Letter to a CES Director take a quote from B.H. Roberts in which Roberts was paraphrasing someone with whom he disagreed, and then make it appear as if it were Roberts' own opinion?

The citation: B.H. Roberts: "If Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be proven discredited..."

Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: "Jeremy Runnells and the Book of Abraham" presents a quote from B.H. Roberts in order to demonstrate that Roberts believed that if the translation of the papyri of the Book of Abraham was not validated by non-Mormon Egyptologists, that it would invalidate Joseph Smith's claim to have been a prophet. The author presents the quote as follows:

“If Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be proven discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon, and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught.” – Elder B.H. Roberts, LDS Scholar and General Authority, Comprehensive History of the Church 2:138

B.H. Roberts quote presented in Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: "Jeremy Runnells and the Book of Abraham"

Note: The author of the Letter to a CES Director inaccurately transcribed the Roberts quote: The first occurrence of the word "proven" should not be there. The author appears to have simply copied it from another secondary source rather than examining the primary source.

The reality: B.H. Roberts: "The 'collapse of Mormonism' was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited...Nothing of this kind happened"

The quote from Roberts is actually a paraphrase of a criticism of the Book of Abraham offered in 1912 by the Rev. F. S. Spalding. This is not Roberts' opinion: it is Roberts phrasing of Spalding's opinion. Note in particular that Roberts was stating that Spalding's prediction that this would spell the "collapse of Mormonism" was unfulfilled:

[T]he "collapse of Mormonism" was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon; and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught. "It is the belief," wrote Bishop Spalding, "that the honest searchers for truth among the Latter-day Saints will welcome the opinions of authoritative scholars, and, if necessary, courageously readjust their system of belief, however radical a revolution of thought may be required, that the following judgments of the world's greatest Egyptologists have been ascertained." (Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator, p. 19). Nothing of this kind happened however, "Mormonism" was not moved a peg by the critique.

The full story

Here is Roberts' full quote, with the portion extracted by the author of the Letter to a CES Director highlighted in blue:

In 1912 a widespread interest was awakened in the Book of Abraham by the publication of a brochure, by Rt. Rev. F. S. Spalding, D. D. Episcopal Bishop of Utah, under the title Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator. The bishop submitted the facsimiles of some of the parchment pages from which the Book of Abraham had been translated, (copies of which accompany this chapter) to a number of the foremost of present day Egyptian scholars. These were Dr. A. H. Sayce, Oxford, England; Dr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, London University; James H. Breasted, Ph. D., Haskel Oriental Museum, University of Chicago; Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assistant Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Department of Egyptian Art; Dr. John Peters, University of Penn., in charge of Expedition to Babylonia, 1888-1895; Rev. Prof, C. A. B. Mercer, Ph. D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collections, Egyptian Reproductions; two German scholars—Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin; and Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissin, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich—eight in all. Speaking of the result obtained from the submission of these facsimiles to these foremost Egyptologists, Bishop Spalding says: "It will be seen that there is practically complete agreement as to the real meaning of the hieroglyphics, and that this meaning is altogether different from that of Joseph Smith's translation." (Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator, p. 19). He also says that "The opinions were obtained from the scholars themselves, and in no case did one man know the opinion of another" (Ibid).

The seeming triumph of the bishop's test of the "Mormon" Prophet's ability to translate ancient languages correctly by inspiration from God, was much commented upon throughout the United States, and especially by the religious press; and the "collapse of Mormonism" was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon; and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught. "It is the belief," wrote Bishop Spalding, "that the honest searchers for truth among the Latter-day Saints will welcome the opinions of authoritative scholars, and, if necessary, courageously readjust their system of belief, however radical a revolution of thought may be required, that the following judgments of the world's greatest Egyptologists have been ascertained." (Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator, p. 19). Nothing of this kind happened however, "Mormonism" was not moved a peg by the critique. So far as known there were not a score of Latter-day Saints whose faith was affected by the Spalding brochure. There were no Egyptian scholars in the church of the Latter-day Saints who could make an effective answer to the conclusions of the eight scholars who in various ways pronounced against the correctness of Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchments that so strangely fell into his hands; but a number of articles were written by elders of the church pointing out the bias of the scholars and some evident defects in the treatment of the subject; and also reviews of Bishop Spalding's arguments.[1]

Why does the author of the Letter to a CES Director consider B.H. Roberts a "scholar" in this case?

B.H. Roberts was the most notable LDS apologist of the early 20th-century

The author of the Letter to a CES Director, who considers all Latter-day Saint scholars merely "apologists" and not worthy of attention, calls B.H. Roberts a "scholar" in this case. Roberts was indeed a scholar, but he was also the most notable Latter-day Saint apologist of the early 20th-century.

Here's what the author of the Letter to a CES Director thinks of the distinction between "scholar" and "apologist" as he attacks Brian Hales' scholarship:

Hales is not a scholar. He's an anesthesiologist who hired Don Bradley to do his research for him. He then wrote 3 books using his employee's homework. Author? Sure. Apologist? Yes. Amateur? Yes. Scholar? No. He's an apologist disguising himself as a scholar. The real scholars in the field of polygamy have issues with many of Hales' conclusions and interpretations. Anyone with big bucks and writing skills can do what Brian did. All you have to do is hire guys like Don Bradley to do all the work for you and then you throw the stuff in a nice hardcover book with your name on it.[2]

Could it be because the author of the Letter to a CES Director in this case calls B.H. Roberts a "scholar" because thinks that Roberts said something that he agrees with...that is, after he modified Roberts' quote to remove the portions he disagreed with? Remember, B.H. Roberts, LDS Scholar and General Authority, said "The 'collapse of Mormonism' was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited...Nothing of this kind happened."


LDS Truth Claims: The Book of Abraham


Notes

  1. ↑ B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, 6 vols. (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1976), 2:138.
  2. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, author of the "Letter to a CES Director". Posted on "Who's the Real Amateur?" Ploni Almoni: Mr. So-and-So's Mormon Blog, July 16, 2014, https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2014/07/whos-real-amateur.html.


Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Detailed_response_to_CES_Letter%2C_Book_of_Abraham&oldid=237255"