Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: May 25, 2014 11:11PM

"Scholar Says Mormon Scripture Not an Egyptian Translation" 'The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition'"

"Chicago: In 1835 a traveling curiosity peddler of Egyptian mummies arrived in the small town of Kirtland, Ohio. He caught the attention of Joseph Smith (1805-44), the controversial founder of the Mormon religion. Smith secured a large sum of money from his followers ($2,400, or $60,000 in today’s dollars) to purchase four Egyptian mummies with scrolls of papyri. Smith announced that he could do what no one else could do: translate the ancient hieroglyphics. Smith asserted that the papyri contained the writings of the biblical prophets Abraham and Joseph. He titled his translation of the papyri the 'Book of Abraham.' Smith’s translation contained several images from the papyri and in 1851 was published as part of the Mormon scripture called “The Pearl of Great Price.”

"Now, for the first time, the surviving papyri have been translated into English in their entirety. In analyzing and translating the ancient texts, Robert K. Ritner, foremost American scholar of Egyptology, has determined that they were prepared for deceased men and women in Thebes during the Greco-Roman period. They have nothing to do with Abraham, Joseph, or a planet called Kolob, as Smith had claimed.

“'Except for those willfully blind,' writes Professor Ritner of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, 'the case is closed.' In his new book, 'The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition,' he also accuses two scholars of Egyptology at Mormon-owned Brigham Young University of borrowing and distorting his own writings in trying to defend Smith’s interpretations as authentically translated Egyptian. Smith’s translation narrative tells of a young Abraham who is about to become a human sacrifice at the request of his father. It also tells of a human pre-mortal existence and teaches that the Egyptian pharaohs were cursed by God (leading to the Mormon priesthood restrictions on African Americans). It also established the Mormon theology for multiple gods.

"The Mormon Church restricts access to the original papyri, which it owns. Ritner gained access to high resolution scans through a third party. He concluded that the papyri are ordinary Egyptian funeral texts, with possibly a few interesting side notes. For example, one of the Smith papyri is the 'Document of Breathing Made by Isis' and is the oldest known datable copy (pre-150 BCE). Otherwise, Ritner states, anyone investigating claims of ancient evidence for Smith’s translation should not 'waste his time,' although he does admit 'that the study of the Mormon period of Egyptomania is interesting by itself.'

"Concerning the charges of uncredited borrowing, Ritner draws attention to the 'striking resemblance' to his own work in later publications by Michael D. Rhodes, an Associate Research Professor of Egyptology with BYU’s religion faculty. 'One can legitimately raise the question of plagiarism,' says Ritner. In some cases, Rhodes 'tacitly adopted my reading, but failed to remove his punctuation from an earlier attempt to translate the artifacts.'

"A fragment from the original Joseph Smith papyri, now 'Facsimi'e No. 1' in the Mormon scripture, 'The Pearl of Great Price.” Because of the incomplete nature of the fragment, a contemporary of Joseph Smith filled in the missing portions. Joseph Smith’s text begins, 'The Book of Abraham. Translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith.' Ritner is equally critical of the work of Associate Research Professor of Egyptology John Gee, of BYU’s Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and the late Hugh Nibley, a BYU religion professor (BYU does not have a department of Egyptology).

"For members of the Mormon religion, Smith’s 'translation' remains a product of their faith.

"'The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition,' by Robert K. Ritner with contributions by Marc Coenen, H. Michael Marquardt, and Christopher Woods, is published by the Smith-Pettit Foundation of Salt Lake City, and distributed by Signature Books, also of Salt Lake City. The type was set by the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.

"About the authors and their essays: Robert K. Ritner, Professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, has published over 100 books and articles on Egyptian religion, magic, medicine, language, and literature, as well as social and political history. Christopher Woods is an Associate Professor of Sumerology, University of Chicago ('The Practice of Egyptian Religion at "Ur of the Chaldees'), Marc Coenen has an Egyptian Studies PhD., University of Leuven, Belgium ('The Ownership and Dating of Certain Joseph Smith Papyri'), and H. Michael Marquardt, is author of 'The Revelations of Joseph Smith: Text and Commentary' ('Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers: A History')."

http://signaturebooks.com/2012/02/scholar-says-mormon-scripture-not-an-egyptian-translation/
_____


In a Rhodes-the-Plagiarizer related note, in September 1993 I twice met privately (at my personal request and through the assistance of my father, Mark A. Benson--R.I.P.--who helped arrange the encounters), with Mormon apostles Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks in the offices of the LDS Church Administration Office building in Salt Lake City, Utah.

There (among other vain attempts at defending the Mormon Church) Maxwell and Oaks made a futile effort to legitimize the alleged "translation" of Joseph Smith's scriptural hoax--otherwise known as the Book of Abraham. (Before commencing this impossible task, Maxwell and Oaks were apparently worried that I might be taping our conversations and, in fact, asked me if that was the case. I wasn't but I took notes during our discussions and when back home in Arizona recorded my personal recollections on a tape recorder while still fresh in my mind).

Maxwell was much more energetic than Oaks in their jointly-unsuccessful exercise to defend the Book of Abraham. He first appealed to other LDS scripture--in this case, the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 7--to argue that the Book of Abraham was translated by Smith in "catalystic fashion." Maxwell told me that Smith had in a vision seen parchments from the writings of John the Revelator. Maxwell also told me that Smith may have had revealed to him Egyptian parchments 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" ancient parchments that were not actually with him. Instead, Maxwell proposed, he may have had revealed to him "in some kind of vision" the source from which he then translated the Book of Abraham.

While acknowledging that 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, Maxwell told me, 'Don't pounce on Joseph Smith.' Maxwell said 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 Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham--or, for that matter, that Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.

In support of that position, Maxwell handed me a FARMS review, written by, yes, 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: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).

On closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes' review was photocopied, I determined that the review, in fact, had originated with FARMS. It 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."

FARMS, at Maxwell's request, was riding to the rescue in his effort to help sell the Book of Abraham during our discussions.

Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following excerpt from Rhodes' article (broken out below in paragraphs for easier reading):

"First of all, none of these manuscripts of the [B]ook 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 [B]ook 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 DandC 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 [B]ook of Abraham, they would surely have denounced Joseph Smith for this, but they never did."

Rhodes' apologetics were apparently good enough for Maxwell, since he heaped glowing praise on FARMS, telling me, "We're grateful for FARMS because they protect us on the flank." In fact, Maxwell confided to me that FARMS had been given the express mission of not allowing the Mormon Church to become outflanked. In relaying to me his sincere gratitude to FARMS, it was obvious what Maxwell meant: FARMS' job was to prevent the Mormon Church from being defeated through end-arounds by its critics and, in that quest, was keeping the Mormon apostles themselves from finding themselves outflanked and outgunned.

In the end, Maxwell--reacting to criticism of the Book of Abraham's authenticity--sweepingly declared to me, "We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."

Earth to Maxwell: The Mormon Church is not only jerkwater, it's in way over its head--and all you floundering fakers can do is plagiarize non-Mormon scholars who actually don't even agree with you in the first place.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fexmormon.org%2Fphorum%2Fread.php%3F2%2C809696&ei=77OCU_fvOdDhoAT914K4BQ&usg=AFQjCNHc-BCgs6q3aym6JBWtqlzOhUGb1w&bvm=bv.67720277,d.cGU


For a related, fuller RfM post (which includes a description of Oaks' attempts to help Maxwell in rescuing the phony Book of Abraham from itself), see also:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,809696



Edited 19 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2014 03:29AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: White Cliffs ( )
Date: May 25, 2014 11:28PM

Sounds like a good book. I should check out Signature Books more often.

The frustrating thing is that Egyptology is inherently quite interesting. Anyone could learn a lot about history, or religion, or social psychology by studying ancient papyri. But forcing it all to agree with Joseph Smith's momentary inspirations in the 1830's absolutely ruins it.

And Mormons could obviously find a few parallels in legitimate translations of papyri, and then apply the usual reasoning: they fell away from a higher religion, God reveals a portion through every nation, etc. But in this case they've got to claim it all because of the extraordinary claims made by Smith himself. It makes them look foolish, and they may be ready to put the whole thing aside as one of those rare (!!!) prophetic errors.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slskipper ( )
Date: May 26, 2014 01:21AM

The most damning fact is that the BofA, regardless of its provenance, is accepted as true and outright Scripture (meaning from God himself) by the LDS church. So maybe JS didn't get it dire3ctly from the papyri. Maybe it was transcribed by this or that scribe, or whatever. But regardless, it says some pretty untenable things, like the origins of the sun's light or the early history of Egypt and the Negroid race connection. The G-15 cannot palm that off on the FARMS crowd. The book is simply wrong. And the LDS church requires that it be right.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jiminycricket ( )
Date: May 26, 2014 01:22AM

Robert K. Ritner, the foremost American scholar of Egyptology mentioned in the OP, is prominently featured at various points in the informative popular YouTube video: "The Collapse of Mormonism: Why Millions Are No Longer Mormons" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn1iGvXU0dI

This video on the Book of Abraham had 239,347 views as of last Nov. 15, 2013. Today (6 months later) there are 340,200 views, an increase of 100,000. The word is getting out!

----

Now, I have a real problem with the gobbledygook apologetic text that FARMS provided Maxwell: “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.”

The D&C’s whole bit of ‘studying it out in your mind’ takes on a whole new meaning when you toss out the Mormon Church’s sanitizing solution dowsed on the original text which altered it to read differently or more religiously in today's D&C. When you examine the first account of that revelation before it was changed to “the rod of Aaron,” the phrase to ‘study it out in your mind’ takes on new life.

Originally, Joseph Smith was telling Oliver Cowdery to ‘study it out in his mind first’ so he could get the revelation through his silly diving rod, his ‘rod of nature.’ To me this scripture really means to study it out in your mind, figure out how to con someone successfully, use your folk magic and then proceed. The modern Church has taken that phrase and given it a whole different meaning. After all, ‘studying it out in your mind’ was the process Joseph Smith used. Then he used his rock and a hat trick to create the Book of Mormon.

For Maxwell or FARMS to use D&C 9:8 is ridiculous.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2014 01:46AM by jiminycricket.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: May 26, 2014 01:55AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

The title here is "The Lost Book of Abraham."

This one has more that 319,000 views, so we can add that number to Jiminy's figure above...

They held a viewing of this one at Utah Valley University a dozen years ago, and group of us associated with RFM attended. I reviewed it back then, and I noted it was hilarious trying to see a distinguished Egyptologist such as Ritner try to maintain a straight face in discussing the subject.

The FAIR defenders-of-the-faith were present, and one of them offered an interesting insight into the intellectual vacuum that LDS apologetics operate within.

Our zealous sort voiced the complaint that someone really important had been left out of the presentation...

"When you think of physics, who do you think of?"

"Einstein, of course."

"And when you think of languages?"

The answer of course, was supposed to be Nibley, but I managed a BA--in one of the humanities, with a language minor--at the secular heretic institution to the north without ever encounter the Nibster, and I drifted away after picking up one of their handouts.

The authors didn't try to address the issues raised in the video; rather they resorted to some sanctimonious umbrage over a number of "distinguished Egyptian scholars" could demean themselves by such an attack on "a people's sacred religion."

The following book is outstanding as well; Charles M. Larson authored it, and he was fired from a teaching position in Utah County as a result.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/by-his-own-hand-upon-papyrus-charles-m-larson/1001335287?ean=9780962096327

It includes some marvelous color renditions of the original Chandler papyrii...

You can also get the audio podcast of Charle's presentation at the 2009 Exmormon Conference here:

http://www.exmormonfoundation.com/audio2009_low.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2014 01:56AM by SL Cabbie.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jiminycricket ( )
Date: May 26, 2014 10:17AM

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE
... "The title here is "The Lost Book of Abraham." This one has more that 319,000 views, so we can add that number to Jiminy's figure above..."

That is correct. This is the same video as "The Collapse of Mormonism: Why Millions Are No Longer Mormons" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn1iGvXU0dI

The video called "The Lost Book of Book of Abraham" had 306,920 views as of last Nov. 15, 2013. Today (6 months later) there are 319,625 views, an increase of 12,705.

I think the title "The Lost Book of Abraham" doesn't catch the attention of the potential YouTube viewer as well as the more sensational title, "The Collapse of Mormonism." Nonetheless, the word is getting out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: 3X (NLI) ( )
Date: May 26, 2014 09:13AM

--> The Church is not a jerkwater organization. <--






Resonates rather nicely ...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lasvegasrichard ( )
Date: May 26, 2014 02:51PM

When you look at the J S ' explanation ' on the Facimiles and see that it's all made up and an obvious lie , are we then supposed to rationalize somehow that the rest is true ? The psychiatric world doesn't have enough terminology for that .

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jiminycricket ( )
Date: May 26, 2014 02:58PM

Precisely. Apologists or Apostles can try and give every other reason for the BoA's origination, and must ignore the facsimiles. I can hear them now, "If only Joseph Smith had left out the facsimiles we'd be home free."

jiminycricket ☺

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******    ******   ********   ********  **      ** 
 **    **  **    **  **     **  **        **  **  ** 
 **        **        **     **  **        **  **  ** 
 **        **        **     **  ******    **  **  ** 
 **        **        **     **  **        **  **  ** 
 **    **  **    **  **     **  **        **  **  ** 
  ******    ******   ********   ********   ***  ***