In a now-closed thread, RfM poster "Fetal Deity" offers a brutal assessment of the Book of Abraham under the subject line, "'The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham,' claims a top Mormon apologist," with a link provided to those claims:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html


"Fetal Deity" comments bluntly:

"This statement is utterly indefensible: the Mormon church is a 'house of cards.' If the church were to admit that the Book of Abraham had 'fallen,' it would be an admission that Joseph Smith were a false prophet--and there goes the entire Restoration! (How can he NOT see the problem with his assertion?)

"Dr. John Gee (Egyptologist at Brigham Young University) also stated:

"'The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.'

"To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time."

"What Dr. Gee apparently failed to mention is that the Book of Abraham contains exactly TWELVE pages of text, while the entire standard works of the Mormon church total just under 2,500 pages of text.

"So, the Book of Abraham comprises less than ONE-HALF of one percent of the total page count in Mormon scripture; it would appear then, that General Authorities since 1942 have given as much or MORE weight to the Book of Abraham as to the rest of the Mormon canon.

"And here are a couple of BOLDLY CONFIDENT (sarcasm alert) assertions made by Gee:

"'I think [the Book of Abraham] can be defended.'

"And:

"'[T]hough God knows everything,' we do not and cannot . . . .'

"So this is the state of Mormon apologetics? I guess you kind of have to feel sorry for the guy! But, really, WOW!--just WOW!

"Also, see 'The Priceless fraud of the Book of Abraham,' by JoD3:360 at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,113465,113465#msg-113465 "

("'The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham,' claims a top Mormon apologist," posted byFetal Deity, "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 17 February 2011, 5:46 p.m., original emphasis, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,116579,116579#msg-116579)
_____


To be sure, the Book of Abraham cannot be defended.

Indeed, even two of the Mormon Church's apostles proved that point privately in their futile and fruitless attempts to do so.

Here's the skinny on the shaky foundation of the Book of Abraham, as evidenced in the less-than-stout-hearted defense of it lamely put up by some of LDS Inc.'s leading lights:

Date: 9 September 1993 and 24 September 1993

Location: Room #303, personal office of LDS Apostle Neal A. Maxwell, located in Church Administration Building, Salt Lake City, Utah

Event: Private meetings I had with LDS Apostles Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks to discuss matters of LDS doctrine, practice and history.

Subject (one of many): Historicity of the Book of Abraham
_____


--Posing the Basic Question: Why Doesn't the Book of Abraham Square with Authentic Translations of Ancient Egyptian?--

During my closed-door conversations with Oaks and Maxwell, I asked them why the Mormon Church had not officially addressed problems with Joseph Smith's inability to correctly translate the Book of Abraham.

In that regard, I noted that the translatable Egyptian hieroglyphics actually contained in the papyri (the orignal parchments proving to be common funerary texts from an era dating later than the time of Abraham) were completely unrelated to the "translated" storyline produced by Smith.

**Oaks's Response:

Oaks answered that this was a "substantive issue" which raised important and fundamental questions--as opposed, he said, to the Kinderhook Plates and Solomon Spalding. He then went on to admit that he did not know how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham.

He did say, however, that he was familiar with the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" that Smith was constructing back in the day.

I responded by going into brief detail about how Smith or his scribes would copy an Egyptian hieroglyph from the parchment into a left-hand column then apparently from that single hieroglyph, produce a whole series of words and paragraphs.

I noted that the words and dictionary which Smith attached to the facsimiles had absolutely no relationship with the content of the papyri--as indicated and translated by such noted and reputable Egyptologists as Klaus Bauer of the University of Chicago and others.

Oaks replied:

"Well, there are some things I just don't understand and just don't know." But, he said, he was willing to put such matters on the shelf "until further knowledge comes." Oaks said the jury was out on the Book of Abraham and that we should "wait and see."


**Maxwell's Response:

Unlike Oaks, Maxwell appeared more willing to attempt a defense of the Book of Abraham based on direct appeals to Mormon scripture.

Maxwell observed, for instance, that according to Doctrine and Covenants, Section 7, the Book of Abraham was translated by Joseph Smith in "catalystic fashion."

Smith, Maxwell claimed, had, in vision, seen parchments from the writings of John the Revelator.

Maxwell said that, likewise, Smith may have also had revealed to him Egyptian parchment which he did not touch, physically hold or from which he did not directly translate.

In other words, Maxwell said, Smith may have been "accessing" an ancient parchment that was not actually with him.

Instead, Maxwell proposed, Smith may have had revealed to him "in some kind of vision" the source from which he then translated the Book of Abraham.

(Oaks chimed in, adding that Maxwell's explanation seemed persuasive).
_____


--Confession That the Evidence Against the Book of Abraham Is Stronger Than the Evidence For It--

Oaks admitted that "the scholars" seemed to have the evidence "in their favor" against the Book of Abraham, but that he himself had a "personal witness" that the Book of Abraham was true.

Oaks concluded by saying that he did not let evidence "weighted against Joseph Smith on this" persuade him that the Book of Abraham was not true.
_____


--Trying to Make the Connection Between the Fictional Mormon Abraham and the Actual Ancient Egyptians--

Although Maxwell was no more convincing than Oaks, he still put up more of a fight for the supposed authenticy of the Book of Abraham.

He told me that two "pseudo texts" have revealed a relationship between Abraham and the Egyptians, knowledge of which was "unavailable to scholars in Joseph Smith's time."

While acknowledging that Joseph Smith's former scribe, Warren Parrish, and Mormon hymn composer, W. W. Phelps (of "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" fame), were at one point about ready to leave the LDS Church, he said "don't pounce on Joseph Smith."

Maxwell said, in fact, that the work of Parrish and Phelps on the Book of Abraham manuscript helped bolster the argument that the Egyptian funerary texts were not the actual parchments used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham--or that Joseph Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.
_____


--So Lacking in Confidence in the Book of Abraham, An Apostle Falls Back on FARMS for Help--

Maxwell demonstrated clear dependence on the BYU-based FARMS apologetics arm of the Mormon Church to provide him with supposedly persuasive research on the Book of Abraham.

In revealing how much he actually depended on FARMS, Maxwell told me that one of the purposes of FARMS was to prevent the General Authorities from being outflanked by the Church's critics.

In a clear example of Maxwell's go-to reliance on lower-level apologists to make their case for him, he also told me that the Egyptian funerary texts used by Joseph Smith to concoct a supposed "translation" of the Book of Abraham were not the actual parchments used by Smith in his translation--or that Joseph Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.

This is the FARMS fall-back position--and Maxwell's cheat sheet proved it.

In support of that position, Maxwell handed me a FARMS review, written by Michael D. Rhodes, of Charles M. Larson's book, " . . . By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).

On closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes review was photocopied, I easily determined that the review had indeed not only originated with FARMS but had been transmitted to Maxwell by FARMS in Maxwell's attempt to privately defend to me the Book of Abraham.

Maxwell's "research" document was printed on fax paper bearing the acronym "F.A.R.M.S.," along with the "FAX" date of "09/09/93." It also bore a dispatch time of "1:55" and a BYU-area phone number of "378 3724."

Based on this faxed reference sheet, it was clear that Maxwell had solicited the assistance of FARMS in preparing for our discussions.

Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following excerpt from Rhodes' article:

"First of all, none of these manuscripts of the book of Abraham is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. They are mostly in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parrish. Nowhere in the documents is Joseph Smith designated as the author.

"Moreover, the Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin were clearly written in after the English text had been written. These cannot be the working papers of a translation process. Instead, Phelps and Parrish seemed to have copied down the text of the book of Abraham and were then attempting to correlate that translation with some of the scrolls in the Church's possession.

"These documents are most likely that preliminary stage of investigation and exploration the Lord prescribed in D&C 9:8 to 'study it out in your mind.' The Lord expects us to first do all we can to understand something (and in the process discover our own limitations) before we seek for direct revelation from him.

"This is what Phelps and Parrish were apparently doing, although their efforts were short-lived and unsuccessful. In fact these same men shortly after this began to turn away from the Prophet Joseph and fell into apostasy. If they had been parties to some fraudulent process of producing the book of Abraham, they would surely have denounced Joseph Smith for this, but they never did."
_____


--Despite the Glaring Lack of Genuine Evidence to Support the Authenticity of the Book of Abraham, Maxwell Blusters About Not Giving Ground--


In the end, Maxwell--responding to criticism of the Book of Abraham's authenticity--tried the tough-talk approach, telling me:

"We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."

Um, Neal, the Mormon Church is a jerkwater organization.

*****


Conclusion:

No wonder the Book of Abraham is not the center of Mormonism.

That center isn't holding.



Edited 24 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2011 05:10AM by steve benson.

What unique elements of Mormonism stem solely from the Book of Abraham?

Pre-existence, war in heaven, multiple gods, purpose of life is to prove our loyalty to god.

I think any proof of any part of TSCC being a fraud is important. If your "restoration" of things once perfect, but now flawed, and corrupted is extremely flawed, and corrupted, and done by a con man, you should question a lot. It is amazing what they excuse. Didn't JS say his indiscretions were in his youth before he was given the plates? Of course I do not believe any of it, but hypothetically, why all the glaring errors of indiscretion later? Like the Kinderhook plates, and of course the BofA. Members don't want to know their history.

Members should at least wonder why DH.oax, as an attorney, will disregard evidence against the BofA, and rely on magic, i.e. his "personal witness" to inform him of its veracity:

"Oaks admitted that "the scholars" seemed to have the evidence "in their favor" against the Book of Abraham, but that he himself had a "personal witness" that the Book of Abraham was true.

Oaks concluded by saying that he did not let evidence "weighted against Joseph Smith on this" persuade him that the Book of Abraham was not true."

Da burning bosom trumps all.

How strange. I read the sub line of the OP as saying the _BoM_ isn't central to Mormonism.

I was going to say that that is true in my estimation. It is a "bridge" between regular Christianity (from whence I hailed) and the real Mormonism (of which one does not learn about from the mishies or members until after they've convinced you to buy in, after which they say it's too late to turn back, but even then it's hard as a convert to learn about the Mormon deeps). My TBM friends told me you have to read the BoM first (before, for instance, the PoP which I was particularly interested in) as Mormon leaders instruct, as that is how you get converted.

I don't think a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff in Mormonism comes from the BoM. That is why to me as a convert the BoM didn't seem to be central to the faith. I used to look through the BoM trying to determine the source for this or that doctrine or practice or belief/custom but the thing that was troubling me wasn't in there; that's why I say the BoM is a bridge to get you from Christianity into the deep recesses of Mormonism. You wouldn't go there in one step, from the Bible to the BoA, for instance.

Leaders and members alike do seem to consider that the BoM is pivotal to their faith. That seems like a good place to knock down the props, hopefully awakening many to the truth about the book and therefore the religion itself.

I heard a lot about the four standard works but in my three years in, never even heard about the BoA. That knowledge awaited me here at RfM.

I'm not all that interested in the BoA, even now, but I can see why it would be monumental to BICs and knowledgeable converts (is the latter an oxy?)

Steve wrote:
"We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."

"Um, Neal, the Mormon Church is a jerkwater organization."

Funny line.

God knows we need that in the midst of all the hinky stuff.


(Edited for clarity as in some places I didn't express myself well. Damn flu. It messes with the mind. Reminds me of Mormonism!). :(



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2011 03:06PM by Nightingale.

(And thanks for the plug, too!)

So the BoA is actually from a "spiritual" parchment of some sort, then? But what of the PHYSICAL facsimiles, incorrectly restored and translated by JS, which are included as part of the BoA? The text even refers to at least one of the PHYSICAL images directly:

"That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics."

(Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 1:14)

It seems to me, then, that "Abraham's" own explanation indicates that the text of the BoA had to be taken from the same PHYSICAL papyrus that contained the facsimiles--bottom line: Mawell's "spiritual" maneuvering doesn't stand a "ghost" of a chance (ugh!) of solving anything!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2011 05:58PM by Fetal Deity.

:-)

it's a fraud. There's no need to even look at the other stuff. The next time someone argues that we must not have the correct scrolls, just bring up the facsimiles in the scrolls we do have. I particularly love the "God on his throne with an erection" part.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 12:02AM by bmg.

Especially since "Abraham" specifically mentions at least one of them in the BoA text (Abraham 1:14):

http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng

. . . (Follow-up to yesterday's thread: "intrigued" Egyptologists, missing phalluses and MORE!)

[Fetal Deity, "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 13 February 2011, 6:58 p.m.]
_____



Thanks to everyone who responded to my original post yesterday on the Book of Abraham. You can find it here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,116579

The thread was filling up quickly, so I didn't add any more comments of my own before it was closed by Admin (who all do a GREAT job, by the way!). But I wanted to respond below to a few of your comments--and if anyone else would like to add more original comments to this thread, please do!

Also, Steve Benson has posted a MUST-READ account relating to this subject. Several years ago, he had the opportunity to meet personally with two General Authorities to discuss his concerns over the Book of Abraham (along with other subjects). Their responses to his questions are frustrating and telling. For those of you who haven't read Steve's treatment of this subject, here is the link:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,116958


And here are my responses/comments to some of your posts:

JoD3:360: "'"The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ."' That is true. However, it IS central to LDS brand Mormonism...which is also not central to the Gospel of Christ, restored or otherwise."

FD: Yeah, the BoA is not central (or even relevant) to much of anything outside the Mormon church ... LOL!


Hoggle: "[Facsimile 1] seems to prove that LDS canonized scripture has nothing to do with reality."

FD: Agreed. Those "restorations" that JS made of the missing portions of the facsimiles are a mess--and the interpretations he included in the PoGP are scary bizarre! Even when the apologists claim the papyrus translated by JS to create the BoA has not been found (a wholly untenable assertion!), the facsimiles that have been included as part of the BoA leave them with little room to maneuver!


another guy: "Gee tries to brush away everything except for his six 'important' things that 'need to be defended'."

FD: I noticed that glaring feint, too. It appears that Gee has largely given up trying to be an apologist for the BoA and is simply saying: "Move on. There's nothing to see here. Instead, develop your testimony of these other things that have no connection to the BoA and are in no way threatened (in his mind, at least) by physical evidence!"


magunga and Mårv Fråndsen comments on non-Mormon Egyptologists' being "intrigued" by JS's BoA

FD: Griggs could have also honestly stated that non-Mormon Egyptologists are "dumbfounded," "flabbergasted," "astonished" and "amazed," at JS's "translation" of the BoA ... LOL!


magunga: "[Griggs]told the congregation that his mentor, noted Egyptologist Klaus Baer, had praised Joseph Smith for his insight into ancient Egyptian language and culture ...."

FD: This claim isn't totally unbelievable. I have heard that critics of the Mormon church will often make generous statements regarding the church while in the presence of their Mormon friends and colleagues; this type of inconsistency is just reflective of human nature--everyone tells "white lies" and puts their "positive spin" on things in awkward and difficult situations in order not to damage important relationships with others.


T-Rex and magunga comments on the Greek Psalter and Kinderhook plates incidents.

FD: Of the five examples we have of JS's ability to translate, four have been debunked based on ancient documents that we currently have available to us. They are: portions of the Bible, the Book of Abraham, the Greek Psalter and the Kinderhook plates.

http://www.mormonthink.com/greekweb.htm#whatmost

JS utterly failed to correctly translate any one of those. The "golden plates" allegedly translated to produce the BoM, were conveniently "spirited" off by an angel, and so are unavailable for examination.


Seneca: "For how many has the BoA brought down the church? almost every exmormon that I have meet cite the BoA fraud as a significant reason for losing their faith in the church . . . ."

FD: I think that at least one reason Gee is so desperately trying to downplay the BoA is to make an attempt at "inoculating" members against arguments they may see in the future: if they can be led by him to believe that the BoA is basically insignificant in the scheme of things LDS, then they will be less likely to abandon their "testimonies" in the future when confronted with the INESCAPABLE truth regarding the BoA.


Misfit: "The first 4 lessons in GD class last year were 100% based on The Book of Abraham."

FD: I had NO idea that they were still relying that heavily on the BoA to "supplement" the Bible. I wonder if Gee has even attended a Sunday School class in recent years ... it seems like a lot of Mormon big-wigs find convenient ways to slip away during that hour of the block. It's hard to believe that if he were really aware of the church's Sunday School curriculum that he would have downplayed the BoA so enthusiastically and unequivocally!


Lester Burnham: "Re: ...and remember the phallus 'MIA' on facsimile #2"

FD: That whole "phallus affair" is truly entertaining (for an arrested adolescent like me, anyway!) What's REALLY funny is that when it made its sudden reappearance in recent editions of the BoA, it was apparent "Mr. Winky" was on "navel duty," protruding from the seated figure's STOMACH! Now, I'm not an expert on anatomy, but ... well, never mind! Anyway, if you would like to see this particular deity displayed in all his "anatomical correctness," click on this link (figure is upside-down between four and five o'clock):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HydrocephalusWithChapter162FromTheBookOfTheDead-BritishMuseum-August21-08.jpg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 12:32AM by steve benson.

Funny stuff. I don't think he knows what "jerkwater" means, if he's thinking that's what it means to oscillate between different stances. The Church is a jerkwater organization even by that definition. However, that's not what it means. "Jerkwater" means backwater, far off the beaten path to an extreme degree. I think of a small town in the middle of nowhere filled with snaggletoothed inbreds, which isn't the case at all. Mormons have very fine teeth.

I think of a small town in the middle of nowhere filled with snaggletoothed inbreds -

SOunds like Colorado City...

Dr. John Gee "Whiz" (Egyptologist at Brigham Young University) said that?
He's seriously in de Nile.

If 10 years ago antone standing up in sacrament meeting and said the book of Abraham was not true, they would have been excommunicated. My how the documents changes. cult



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2011 01:11PM by get her done.

Wow. That is shocking. The worst I ever got when asking what I thought were perfectly normal questions was "that's not essential to your salvation" (so we're not gonna answer you) and "you've brought contention into the church" (when I mentioned a point of doctrine in the Ensign that was apparently bad form on my part - my TBM friend said "we don't discuss doctrine in church"). That was a shocker to me as other churches I'd attended held scholarly classes and encouraged questions and different points of view.

How can you be ex'd for asking questions? If you seem particularly snarky while doing so maybe? :/

. . . proved that Dunn was a fraud.

The hometeacher also liked to privately tell "dirty" jokes.

Yet, he read me the riot act over my questioning of the Book of Fabricationham.

I think he was suffering from closeted, personal doubt syndrome.

Maybe he thought it's OK to query other Mormons but not church publications?

I don't like how HTs and VTs think they have some kind of extra authority over their visitees. I had an 18-yr-old VT who said she had a revelation for my life and she _commanded_ me to do such and so.

Sheesh. Mormonism can make people weird. Or else weird people live inside Mormonism.

Either way, it's a mind-bender for the less weird among us.

. . . let go, after students in his class complained to school administrators that he was telling racist jokes at their expense.

The HT had even shared some of these "jokes" with me, grumping that the minority students who objected to them had no sense of humor.

I warned the HT that if he didn't quit telling these "jokes," he would get fired.

He eventually was.

And I never was excommunicated.

Heh.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2011 09:21PM by steve benson.

He also lent me $600.00 in cold cash one Sunday morning (when the banks were closed) so that I could buy a billiards table that I had just found in the want ads. (I paid him back the following day).

He was quite a case study in conflict.

And a former bishop, too.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2011 09:37PM by steve benson.

The Book Of Mormon is not central to your faith, nor the D & C, nor the last 12 prophets before this one (though they have kind of said that anyway) Ignore the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here, keep sending the tithing, that is central to your faith.

When I was having discussions with my Bishop and had zillions of issues, he told me that if I stuck to my duties and paid my tithing and put these issues aside, I would see that it was true.

Yep.

Nobody has an answer, and you don't need an answer. This isn't about your actual salvation or even that Jesus character, but it is about your commitment to build and sustain the "kingdom".

If you can put the BoA "aside" as leaders suggest, why not put the BoM aside with all the rest of the fraudulent stuff?

Gee's claim that it's not central is ridiculous.

If I were a mormon, I would have to ask:

Why should I believe Smith correctly translated the "Reformed Egyptian" of the BoM when it's proven he didn't properly translate bona-fide Egyptian in the BoA?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2011 01:45PM by Jesus Smith.