A couple of recent threads about the BOA reminded me of when I first began debating the issue with Mormon apologists on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup back in 2000. At that time, I was newly out of the church, and had only been studying these subjects for a couple of years. Several different Mormon apologists, including Kerry Shirts, Russell McGregor, and Woody Brison, had posted their typical defenses of the BOA in various threads. I refuted their arguments point-by-point over multiple posts, and I'm copying some of the most informative and detailed info here for newbies. This material gets pretty detailed and not all of it is particularly interesting, but it's the kind of stuff I had to get into in order to refute the Mopologists' arguments. Readers who have never studied the BOA controversies might get something out of it.

A new poster named Neos posted links to pro-BOA apologetic sites:

>http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml
>http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml
>http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/mormonis.htm#Book
>http://www.farmsresearch.com/review/4/gee.html
>http://lds.net/pages/wwbrison/rolls.htm
>http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham.htm
>http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham2.htm
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/Abraham.html
>http://home.att.net/~michael.rhodes/jshypo.htm
>
>Fake?
>
>--
>--Efialtis

I responded:

Neos, scholarly rebuttals have been offered to all of the claims that are made
in the websites you list. Two of your sites you list are run by former ARM
posters Kerry Shirts and Woody Brison. I have repeatedly rebutted all of their
alleged 'evidence.'

If you wish to examine responsible opposing viewpoints to Mormon apologetics on
the BoA, I recommend that you read Charles Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon
Papyrus," as well as scholarly refutations of work like Gee's and Nibley's, put
forth by other Mormons like Edward Ashment and Stephen Thompson, and also Stan
Larson's "Quest for the Gold Plates."

If you would like me to re-post some of my old rebuttals to Kerry Shirts, Woody
Brison, Charles Dowis, and Russell McGregor, on the BOA, I'll be happy to.

Randy J.

Mopologist Woody Brison was advocating the "missing scroll" theory---the idea that the existing papyrus fragments are not the specific ones from which Joseph Smith "translated" the BOA.

Woody Brison quoted Oliver Cowdery:

>Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of
>Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautifully
>written on papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in
>perfect preservation. The characters are such as you find upon the
>coffins of mummies, hieroglyphics, &c. with many characters or letters
>exactly like the present, (though probably not quite so square,) form of
>the Hebrew without points.

I responded:

My comments are for people who are interested in learning about this subject
from a standpoint of logic, reason, and common sense. If you don't fall into
those categories, I suggest that you delete this now, and forget about it. I
am not interested in debating the issue with people who are not serious about
using logic, reason, or common sense, as opposed to fanatical apologetics, to
deal honestly with the subject. My comments are plain and simple for any
person of average intelligence to comprehend. I employ the basic skills of
any
honest researcher, such as deductive reasoning and the process of elimination.

My comments:

1. Cowdery speaks of at least two scrolls, one of 'Abraham' and one of
'Joseph'. Since the only work published from the papyrus is the 'Book of
Abraham', and thus is the only work by which we can test JS' 'translating
abilities', then it is obvious that the only papyrus fragments relative to
this
issue are the ones which JS himself clearly identified as being 'facsimiles
from the BOA', which everyone knows, portions of are printed in the LDS BOA in
the PGP. We simply can't debate what may or may not be on any possible
'missing scrolls'; we have to work with what we have.

2. If there are, in fact, any 'missing scrolls', logic dictates that they
would be from what JS claimed was the 'book of Joseph', not from the 'book of
Abraham.' The obvious reason for this is that JS, having declared portions of
the papyrus as being from 'the writings of Abraham', had Reuben Hedlock copy
the three 'facsimiles' for publication in the 'Times and Seasons'. If any
drawings or hieroglyphs from any alleged 'missing scrolls' had any relevance
to
the 'book of Abraham', then it is obvious that JS would have instructed
Hedlock
to copy those as well, and include them in with the other three supposed 'BOA'
facsimiles for publication. The fact that portions of the published BOA text
relate to the copied facsimiles, as JS supposed them to be 'illustrations' for
the story, indicates that JS considered those fragments, above all others, to
be of prime relevance to the story of the BOA.
In plain English, if any alleged 'missing' scrolls were relevant to the BOA,
JS
would likely have included drawings or hieroglyphs from them in his 'BOA', but
he didn't.

3. JS clearly recorded in his 'history' that he himself---not anyone
else---was
the creative force behind 'translating an alphabet and grammar of the Egyptian
language'. People who assert that persons other than JS were actually
responsible for the gibberish known as the 'EA&G' have nothing to back up that
assertion, except a desire to make JS not look like a fool.
If JS himself was not the person who was creating such a work, then he lied in
his history when he said that it was he who was doing so.

4. The EA&G, as well as the original handwritten BOA manuscript, include
hieratic characters copied in order from the Sen-Sen text, which is part of
the
'Book of Breathings', which was originally a portion of the same scroll which
includes the 'lion-couch scene' known to Mormons as Facsimile No. 1.
It is obvious that JS interpreted that scene as 'Abraham' being sacrificed
upon
an altar; the 'Abraham' character in JS' story states 'that you may have a
knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the
beginning of this record.' (Abr. 1:12).
Egyptian characters read right to left, like Hebrew; thus, when the 'Abraham'
character refers us to the 'beginning of this record', he obviously means to
the right of the 'lion-couch' scene. The hieratic characters which are
copied,
in sequential order, from the Sen-Sen text, into the margin of the original
BOA
manuscript, come from the right-hand end of the 'lion-couch' scene which was
separated by JS or his associates; thus, it is obvious that those same
hieratic
characters in the BOA manuscript margins, are the same ones which the
'Abraham'
character describes as being 'at the beginning of this record.' So it is
obvious that
JS wanted his followers to believe that those hieratic characters----and not
any from some alleged 'missing scroll'----were the characters that he claimed
to 'translate' into the BOA.

5. A reporter from the 'Quincy Whig' published his visit to JS and his tour
of
the mummies and fragments on October 17, 1840, which is obviously a
contemporary, and thus credible, source. Those comments have been published
numerous times by LDS scholars and apologists to support the story of the BOA
origin. However, certain statements from the article are very revealing, and
destructive, to the LDS apology for the BOA, to wit:

"Then he (JS) walked to his secretary (that is, the old-fashioned
secretary---a
piece of furniture----on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several
frames *COVERED WITH GLASS*, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian
papyrus on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had
been imprinted. 'These ancient records,' said he, 'throw great light on the
subject of Christianity.....But I will show you how I interpret certain
parts.
There', said he, pointing to a particular character, 'THAT IS THE SIGNATURE OF
THE PATRIARCH ABRAHAM.'
The relevant portions of this are what I capitalized. The article states that
the papyrus fragments had ALREADY been cut up to fit into glass frames; and JS
himself identified
a character on that cut-up portion as being the 'signature of Abraham.'

That means that the papyrus fragments that JS claimed was from the 'BOA' was
not some 'missing', UNCUT, scroll, which Charlotte Haven described as 'running
across the floor'; but rather, the fragment which JS claimed contained the
'signature of Abraham' was cut up and framed for display.
That is more evidence that the 'characters' from which JS claimed to
'translate' the BOA are not 'missing', but are the ones from the Sen-Sen text,
as the other evidence already makes clear.

6. After JS' death, the fragments and mummies were eventually sold to the St.
Louis Museum. In 1859, that museum published a catalog which included the
artifacts. That those artifacts were the ones which JS possessed is
irrefutable, as a reading of the catalog entry proves.
A professor Gustavus Seyffarth, who was apparently familiar with Egyptology as
it could be interpreted to that time in history, gave his interpretation of
the
fragments thus, as published in the 1859 catalog:

"These mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt... forwarded to New
York...purchased in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon prophet, on
account
of the writings found in the chest of one of them, and which he pretended to
translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharoahs---but,
according to Prof. Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an
invocation to the deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person
(Horus),
and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the judge,
Osirus."

We can extrapolate a couple of vital points from this quote:

A. Mormon apologists claim that Bishop Spalding's eight scholars of 1912 can
be disregarded, because they only viewed COPIES of the facsimiles, rather than
the actual fragments. Seyffarth's interpretation is vital because he
obviously
inspected the actual fragments, rather than the LDS-published facsimiles (1907
edition) that Spalding's scholars had to rely on. (Remember, some of
Spalding's scholars commented on how poorly the facsimiles had been copied,
and
that it was difficult to give accurate interpretations because of that).
Seyffarth was not handicapped by that.

B. We all know that no hieratic characters were included in Hedlock's cut of
Fac. 1. JS obviously only wanted to use the lion-couch scene as an
illustration for his story, and at that time, Egyptian had not yet been
deciphered by Champollion, and Egyptian was a 'dead language', so including
any
hieratic characters in the 'Times and Seasons' illustrations would have served
no purpose.
However, Seyffarth had the ACTUAL PAPYRUS, INCLUDING the Sen-Sen text that
was
originally attached to the lion-couch scene, to work with; this is obvious,
because Seyffarth, even with his limited knowledge of the newly-deciphered
Egyptian, gave the interpretation quoted above. His interpretation of the
nature and purpose of the papyrus still stands today----"an invocation to the
deity Osirus, in which appears the name of the dead person (Horus), and a
picture of the attendant spirits....."
Today's Egyptologists, including Mormon ones, agree with Seyffarth's basic
interpretation-----the papyrus are from the ancient Egyptian 'Book of
Breathings', containing invocations, or magical chants, and associated other
Egyptian religious paraphernalia.

The implications of this are obvious and devastating to the authenticity of
JS'
'Book of Abraham.' Not a single item on the papyrus has to do with the
Biblical Abraham, nor in fact anything to do with Judeo/Christian religion or
culture. The papyrus were simply used by JS because his followers purchased
the artifacts for over $2,000; because JS claimed the ability to 'translate
ancient languages'; and thus, JS was forced to use the illustrations on the
papyrus to invent a story with a Biblical theme. If he had not come up with a
story to back up his claim of ability to 'translate', he would have been
exposed as a fraud. As it turned out, his exposure came only a little more
than a decade after his death, when Seyffarth gave his interpretation of the
fragments.

Cowdery's words, which Woody quoted, stated that "the characters are such as
you find upon the coffins of mummies, hieroglyphs, etc."
Cowdery was dead right on his remarks. That's ALL the fragments are, and they
have NOTHING to do with 'Abraham.'

And that is why arguing the authenticity of the BOA is akin to 'beating a dead
Horus'.

Randy J.

A Mopologist named Charles Dowis wrote to a poster named Bob Deep::

>Have you read John Tvedtnes' theory on the translation of the BOA text? Are
>you familiar with his demonstration of how the BOA translation matches quite
>well the papyri? One with ominiscence should at least have read Tvedtnes.
>
>In fact, there is an objective method to test his theory. I will be happy to
>give you the references to his theory, if you are willing to participate in
>an experiment to test it.
>
>Do you agree? Do we have a deal??
>
>(Before you answer, you might want to do your homework on Tvedtnes'
>**mneumonic** theory of the translation. I have posted this challange many
>times but have no takers. If JS really was "wrong" in his translation, then
>you should have no problemo in using a scientific test of his translation
>ability.)

I responded:

Attention Bob Deep:

I assume you're new here. Just to fill you in, Charles Dowis has a nagging
habit of posting material, being soundly refuted on his assertions, and then a
few months later, as though we've forgotten all about them, he re-posts his
already-refuted assertions. I can only conclude that he believes that all
other posters on ARM are as stupid or forgetful as he is.

I have refuted Charles' "mnemonic device theory" twice in the last year or so,
wherein he claims that "no one has taken the challenge." I will now refute it
again, for your benefit, so that you will never again be taken in by slippery
Charlie.

The title page to Joseph Smith's "Book of Abraham", written by Joseph Smith,
states:

"A Translation of some ancient records, that have fallen into our hands from
the catacombs of Egypt.--The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called
the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Note that Joseph Smith claimed the papyrus to be written by Abraham's own hand,
and that contained an account of Abraham's own biography, as the text of the
BOA indicates. On July 3, 1835, Joseph Smith reiterated that idea by stating,
"I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphs, and much
to our joy found that one of the scrolls contained THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM,
another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc."

To a man, every Egyptologist, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, who has examined the
papyrii, has identified them as funerary documents associated with the ancient
"Book of Breathings," and has dated them to about the first century AD. The
documents contain the name of the mummy which they were buried with, and
verbiage within deals with the afterlife of the deceased, making it
unmistakable that the papyrus is part of a funerary text---not some story about
"Abraham."

Joseph Smith made other bold, yet incorrect statements about the mummies which
were recorded by witnesses of his day. A reporter from the 'Quincy Whig'
recorded Smith as saying:

"The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case..is one of the
Pharoahs who sat upon the throne of Egypt, and the female figure by it was
probably one of the daughters. It may have been the Princess
Thermutis.....These ancient records...throw great light on the subject of
Christianity.....I will show you how I interpret certain parts."
'There,' said he, pointing to a particular character, 'that is the SIGNATURE of
the prophet Abraham.' "

Also, noted author Josiah Quincy recalled an 1844 visit with Smith:
"Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us....'That is
the HANDWRITING of Abraham, the father of the faithful,' said the prophet.
'This is the AUTOGRAPH of Moses, and those lines were WRITTEN by his brother
Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses
composed the first book of Genesis."
(Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past,p. 385.)

In 1859, the then-current owner of the mummies and papyrus, the St. Louis
Museum, published a catalog which described the items, including some
explanatory comments by a Professor Gustavus Seyffarth:

"These mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt, sixty feet below the
surface of the earth, for the Antiquarian Society of Paris, forwarded to New
York, and there purchased, in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon prophet,
on account of some of the writings on some of them, and which he pretended to

translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharoahs---but,
according to Professor Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an
invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person (Horus),
and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the Judge,
Horus."

Thus we see that only 17 years after Joseph Smith's 1842 "translation," a
scholar of Egyptian exposed the fraud, and stated the correct interpretation of
the papyrii, which is still agreed upon by Egyptologists today.

One of Joseph Smith's closest followers, Parley P. Pratt, recorded the details
of the transfer of the mummies from Michael Chandler to Joseph Smith:

"Mr. Chandler was..anxious to find someone who could interpret or translate
this valuable relic of antiquity...He everywhere heard of Joseph
Smith...inquire(d) if he had a power to translate the ancient Egyptian. Mr.
Smith REPLIED THAT HE HAD, when Mr. Chandler presented the fragment which had
been partially interpreted. Mr. Smith retired into his translating room, and
presently returned with a WRITTEN TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH, OF THE FRAGMENT,
confirming the supposed meaning ascribed to it...."(Millenial Star, July 1,
1842.)

Note Pratt's statement that it only took Smith a short time to come up with a
"translation" of ancient hieroglyphs that scholars of Egyptian were just
beginning to unfold through the Rosetta Stone.
Note also that Pratt mentioned nothing about a "memory device" or "triggering
device," but instead the impression JS wished to give was that he had made a
literal translation of what was written on the papyrus. That corroborated other
witnesses' recollections that JS had claimed
"The record is now in the course of translation...and proves to be a record
written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph
when in Egypt."

I could post many other quotes from Smith and his contemporaries that show that
Smith claimed the papyrus to contain actual handwritings and autographs of
Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron, and other quotes that repeat his claim that
the mummies were remains of "Pharoahs" and their families. But the above quotes
are sufficient from a variety of sources, all consistent.

Conclusions:

1. Joseph Smith incorrectly identified the mummies as being in the class of
"Pharoahs," and from the approximate time of the Biblical Abraham. Scholars
have dated the mummies and papyrus from about the time of Christ, some 1500
years after the traditional time of Abraham. The papyrus speaks of the Pharoah
Shishak, who was not born until about 600 years after the time of Abraham,
thereby making it impossible for them to have been written "by the hand of
Abraham."

2. Joseph Smith made no statement whatsoever about what the papyrii actually
were, or what they meant in the ancient Egyptian religion. If he had said
"Brethren, these fragments are of course, part of the ancient Egyptian Book of
the Dead, from about the time of Christ, but they contain a hidden message
about Abraham that I am going to translate via a mnemonic device," one could
cut Smith a little slack. His utter failure to identify the fragments as what
they actually were, even though Mormon apologists claim he saw a "hidden
message" within them, belies his claimed ability to translate ancient
languages. There is nothing about the Biblical Abraham, nor any other Bibical
character, nor anything concerning the Judeo/Christian religion on the papyrus
that Joseph Smith owned.

3. The "mnemonic device theory" pitched by Mormons such as Charles Dowis is
not only a desperate, ill-conceived attempt to "save" Smith as a "translator,"
but also, by pushing the theory, Mormons first have to call Smith a liar!
Mormons must throw Smith's many documented statements about the "handwriting"
and "autographs" of Biblical figures being on the papyrii out the window!
Every lawyer knows that if he casts the slightest shadow of doubt on the
credibility of his own star witness, he has impeached him and lost his case.
Joseph Smith is the "star witness" of Mormonism. When Mormon apologists have
to call Smith a LIAR, while simultaneously advocating that Smith told the
TRUTH, then anything else they may have to say on the subject of Smith's
credibility is null and void.
When I pointed this out to Charles several months ago, his response to me was
that "Joseph Smith was wrong, and if he were here, he'd apologize to you."
Can you imagine a lawyer saying that about his client in the courtroom?

Case closed.

The only thing left unsettled is how long it will be until Charles re-posts his
"unanswered challenge" again.

Mopologist Woody Brison continued to push the "missing scroll" theory with this statement:

> I've searched and searched, but have not been
>able to find any statement by Joseph Smith or anyone around him
>identifying the document he translated to any known existing
>document today.

I responded:

Well then, Mr. ace Mormon scholar and seminary teacher Woody, maybe you
should have just searched for about 10 minutes in Joseph Smith's own journal:

23 February 1842:
gave Reuben Hedlock instructions concerning the cut for the altar & Gods in
the
RECORDS OF ABRAHAM. as designed for the Times and Seasons.

24 February 1842:
was explaining the RECORDS OF ABRAHAM to the recorder.

1 March 1842:
Correcting the first plate or cut of the RECORDS OF FATHER ABRAHAM prepared by
Reuben Hedlock for the Times and Seasons

2 March 1842:
Read the Proof of the "Times and Seasons" as Editor for the first time, No.
9-Vol 3d in which is the commencement of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM.

4 March 1842:
Exhibiting the BOOK OF ABRAHAM in the ORIGINAL, to Bro. Reuben Hedlock, so
that
he might take the size of the several plates or cuts. and prepare the blocks
for the Times and Seasons. & also gave instruction concerning the arrangement
of the WRITING on the large cut. illustrating the PRINCIPLES OF ASTRONOMY.

8 March 1842:
Commenced Translating from the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, for the 10 No. of the Times &
Seasons

9 March 1842:
continued the TRANSLATION of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM

All quotes are from "The Papers of Joseph Smith", Deseret Book, 1992.

"The Book of Abraham," 1:12:

"that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the
representation AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS RECORD."

Now, Woody, a question:

How long are you, and other Mormons on ARM, going to keep up the lie that "we
don't have the source material for the Book of Abraham?"

Randy J.

Mopologist Kerry Shirts joined the fray. He claimed to have "new, updated info" about the BOA from Mormon scholars like John Gee. His comments are preceded by an arrow, and my responses have no arrow.

Kerry wrote:

>This is for Randy who thinks

Randy responded:

You could have ended the sentence there, to distinguish me from you guys on
the
pro-Mormon side.

>he has the knowledge and understanding of the
>papyri issues of the Book of Abraham.

I am smart enough to read what Joseph Smith CLAIMED about the papyrus, and
separate it from what obfuscaters like yourself try to cloud the issues with.

>His dismal performance here on ARM

"Dismal" is in the eyes of the reader. Some people may think it "dismal" that
you didn't copy or refute a single quote from any of my recent posts on the
BoA, in your response to which I am now responding. Your tactic might make
some people believe that you have no rebuttal to the actual facts of history,
so you substitute for the facts, the opinions of modern-day Mormon apologists.

>has finally forced me to at least bother to try and update him, though I
>know he will continue to go his way in his outdated knowledge from the
>1960's era of information. I insist this is 1999, and anyone who is at
>least half honest instead of half baked would try to avail himself of
>correct information.

To the contrary, I don't put nearly as much stock in the "1960's era of
information" as I do in the "1840's era of information." What was said in the
1840's is NEVER outdated; it's the very history that we are discussing. The
tactic of modern Mormon apologists is to try to make the world forget all
about
what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries CLAIMED about the papyrus, and to
trust in the apologists instead. The reason they must do that is because
after
Facsimile 1 was re-discovered in 1966 (destroying the "it all burned up in the
Chicago fire" excuse), and was translated by several Egyptologists, and
confirmed to be nothing more than a Christian-era pagan funerary text, they
have been forced to fill Mormon minds full of mush with red herrings and
strawmen, that cloud the main issues and keep people believing that Joseph
Smith was not a fraud.

>In that spirit I present the very latest updated info.

"Info"=red herrings and strawmen, that cloud and ignore the more important
issues that I have raised.

>on the papyri descriptions as we have them from eyewitness accounts.
>--------------------------
>As of March 1999 the newest most up to date information on the description
>of the Joseph Smith papyri and their descriptions of what they were are as
>follows:

"As of March 1999?" What historical quotes or references from eyewitnesses
has
Gee uncovered that we haven't been able to read ourselves for the last half a
century? Nearly all the quotes you refer to below can be found in James R.
Clark's "Story of the Pearl of Great Price," published by Bookcraft in 1955.
You can also read most of them in "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality", first
published 30 years ago, or in Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus,"
published in 1992. How do you figure that re-stating 150-year-old quotes is
"new and up-to-date"?

>John Gee, the LDS Egyptologist,

Is that the same John Gee whose claims about the BoA were ripped to shreds by
another LDS Egyptologist, Edward Ashment?

>in his lecture on the Papyri called "A
>History of the Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Abraham in "The Book of
>Abraham Lecture Series," has noted the most frequent descriptions of the
>papyri from people who actually saw them with their own eyes.

I have quoted them many times on ARM for nearly two years. Tell us something
we don't already know.

>Granted the anti-Mormon argument of the papyri fossilized in 1969,

Kerry, you are a blind, fanatical apologist who is totally out of touch with reality.
You are so incorrect and juvenile as to make it impossible to communicate with
you on an intelligent, adult level. But I will continue to respond, for the
benefit of adult, thinking people on the forum.

>while it
>has been the Mormon scholars who have carried the work forward and onward
>with new discoveries and analysis.

"New discoveries and analysis"=More red herrings and strawmen designed to make
Mormons take their minds off the bogus claims that Joseph Smith made about the
papyrus.

>The anti-Mormons, ill equipped to handle
>Egyptian

"Anti-Mormons"=Baer, Parker, Wilson, Rhodes, and Nibley? I can't read ancient
Egyptian hieroglyphs, Kerry, but when I read that Mormon scholars come up with
the same interpretation that secular ones do, and that they all contradict
what
Joseph Smith said, then it's obvious that Smith was wrong.

>have not tried to understand anything further than what was known
>in 1969. Their anti-Mormon status is in a sad state of affairs.

All of the statements that Kerry has made, such as the one above, is a tactic
of Mormon apologists that Kerry learned from his hero Nibley, which is to
"condition" his readers by making 7 or 8 derogatory (though unfounded and
irrelevant) remarks that prejudice his readers' minds before he even begins to
state a word of facts or evidence. It's an example of the type of mind
control
that Mormonism employs. Mormon apologetic works are chock-full of this
tactic,
Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie being prime examples of this
arrogant, know-it-all smarminess.
Smart, rational thinking persons learn how to see through KerryNibley's
tactic,
and to get to the real issues. Stupid, irrational thinking people love
KerryNibley's tactic, and eat it up, actually believing that it has some
worth.

>The papyri once were three ancient manuscripts.
The 10 fragments we now
>possess is simply not all the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed by any
>stretch of the imagination.

There's red herring number one. IT DOESN'T MATTER if Joseph Smith had three
fragments, or THREE HUNDRED fragments. We can only debate what we know he
had, and what he claimed about them. There are more than enough fragments existant to
make a determination of Joseph Smith's claims.

>Joseph Smith possessed at least 5 papyri. A
>description of William H. Rust in 1837 said the papyri were a quantity of
>rolls with some pieces being torn off and some pieces lost. The sheets were
>originally rolled up.

I can quote you a dozen statements that were only TWO actual scrolls----one,
Joseph Smith declared was "the writings of Abraham," and the other, "the
writings of Joseph in Egypt." Although the one he claimed contained "the
writing of Joseph" is lost, we know that from contemporary descriptions of it,
that it, like the three Facsimiles published in the BoA, are Egyptian funerary
documents, having nothing to do with Judeo/Christianity. Therefore, Joseph
Smith was O-for-everything in his claims about the missing papyrus, as well as
the found ones.

"Seven of the said eleven (mummies) were purchased by gentlemen for private
museums, previous to Mr. Chandler's visit to this place, with a small quantity
of papyrus, similar (as he says) to the astronomical representations,
contained
with the present *TWO ROLLS*, of which I previously spoke..."
-----Oliver Cowdery, 1835.

>In 1840 the papyrus were described as being in several frames under glass.

Hmmmm.....I wonder why the learned scholar, Mr. Gee, doesn't take it one step
further, and tell us that the 'Quincy Whig' reporter of 1840 specified that
one
of the scrolls that was cut up and framed, also was claimed by JS to be the
"writings of Abraham?" Could it be because it WOULD DESTROY HIS ENTIRE
ARGUMENT, AND PROBABLY HIS LIFE'S WORK?????

"Then he (Joseph Smith) walked to his secretary (that is, the old-fashioned
secretary--a piece of furniture) on the opposite side of the room, and drew
out
several frames COVERED WITH GLASS, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical
characters had been imprinted. 'These ancient records,' said he, 'throw great
light on the subject of Christianity.....But I will show you how I interpret
certain parts. There,' said he, pointing to a particular character, 'THAT IS
THE *SIGNATURE* OF THE PATRIARCH ABRAHAM."

Goodbye, "missing scroll theory," Kerry.

>May 1841- Appleby saw the "rolls of papyrus."
>Caswell in 1842 said he saw glazed slides of papyrus.
>Charlotte Haven Feb. 1843 described a "long roll" and hieroglyphics on
>"another long roll."

Haven's "long roll" quote is negated by JS' statement that the "signature of
Abraham" was contained in a fragment that was already cut up and framed three
years earlier, in 1840. Therefore, any "long roll" Haven may have seen would
not have been the "writings of Abraham," but another fragment.
And if you believe, as Haven wrote, that Lucy Mack Smith claimed the ability
to
read 'Hebrew and Sanscrit,' I've got a seer stone I'd like to sell you.

>Some papyri were in the St. Louis Museum in 1856, Gustav Seifarth (sp?)

Seyffarth.

>saw
>at least one papyrus "roll," and appears to describe "two rolls." Showing
>"rolls" were in existence in the JS Papyri as late as 1856!

Exactly. "Two rolls." "Two rolls," Kerry. One that JS claimed was from
Abraham, and the other from Joseph, both of which were Egyptian funerary
papyrii, as Seyffarth himself interpreted while they were in his possession,
and his interpretation has been agreed upon by every Egyptologist since that
time. Seyffarth described them as being "an invocation to the Deity, Osirus,
in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus), and a picture of the
attendant
spirits introducing the dead to the Judge, Osirus." (Story of the Pearl of
Great Price, p. 159).
Seyffarth's description is exactly what the Facsimiles published in the BoA
contain, as agreed upon by numerous Egyptologists, and have nothing to do with
Abraham, or the Judeo/Christian religion in the least. Thank you for bringing
up Seyffarth; his remarks destroy every modern Mormon argument for the BoA.

>Some sheets were cut and put into frames, leaving at "least two rolls, one
>being a long roll of manuscript."

Already covered.

The roll in the museum of Chicago was
>destroyed by the fire.

The one found in NY in 1966 was supposedly destroyed in that same fire too,
but
it wasn't, was it? I bet you wished it HAD been.

>It was described as a "roll." This one seemed to
>have contained fac. 3.

Utterly irrelevant, as the fragment that JS claimed contained the "signature"
of Abraham was cut up and framed, therefore was no longer a "roll."

>The only surviving pieces are our 10 fragments
>today.

Those 10 are consistent in showing that they have nothing to do with "Abraham"
as JS claimed. He's 0-for-everything.

>Two rolls were destroyed by the fire in Chicago, according to its
>description of its own inventory.

Irrelevant.

>The original roll of Sunenies, (sp?) was 320 by 32 centimeters! The
>damaged outside leaves were preserved under glass preserved as papyrus #,
>7,8,5,6,4,2.
>Only 27 chapters of the Book of the Dead are in these fragments.

Irrelevant.

>One person described the Book of Abraham as translated from the papyri as
>taking over two hours to read aloud.

If you've read any of JS' nonsensical EA&G, you know why. And not all of the
"translated" BoA is published in the PGP. Wonder why that is, Kerry?

>Compare today where it takes only a
>mere few minutes, clearly, we do not have all of the Book of Abraham, let
>alone all of the papyri.

Irrelevant. We have enough papyrii to know that it contained no writings of
Abraham.

>Papyri 3a and 3b was described from early accounts as a "roll." We only
>have two meager fragments of this "roll" today. And all we have of another
>is fac. 2 the hypocephalus. It was separated from its roll sometime and
>somewhere.

The hypocephalus alone kills the BoA, because hypocephali did not even exist
at
the time of Abraham. When JS installed "Abraham" into the hypocephalus, it
roughly equated to someone putting the Apostle Paul into a story wherein he was killed
by a Baptist preacher.

>The Book of the Dead of Amen Hotep described as a "roll," and separate
>document appears only as a small piece as fragment 6 in the Kirtland
>Egyptian Papers. We no longer have any roll of this original, but a mere
>small piece.

Irrelevant.

>The papyrus of Hor was 300 by 11 centimeters!!! All we have from this is
>papyrus Joseph Smith 1, 11, and 10, three small fragments of a roll over
>300 centimeters long!!! And it is two of these fragments, #'s 10 and 11
>that anti-Mormons claim are ALL the original of the Book of Abraham!

Tell the truth, Kerry. It isn't what "anti-Mormons" claim; it's what JOSEPH
SMITH HIMSELF CLAIMED. If the three Facsimiles are not the supposed source
material of the BoA, then please tell us why you think JS would have those
three fragments copied and published in the BoA, rather than the "real" BoA
source material, which you claim is "missing."

>This
>simply cannot be demonstrated according to the physical descriptions of
>Joseph Smith's journal nor in descriptions in the History of the Church.

Utterly false, as I have already shown. Go back and read Joseph Smith's
journal entries that I wrote earlier (which you obviously couldn't refute, so
you went with your irrelevant red herrings and strawmen.)
And here's another quote you can scratch your head on, and smoke a few more
cigarettes over:

"We have the pleasure, this month, in being able to give an ILLUSTRATION AND
EXTRACT from the Book of Abraham, a book of higher antiquity than any portion
of the Bible."
---Parley P. Pratt, Millenial Star, July 1842.

>The critics are mind reading, not showing us HOW Smith translated the
>fragments,

He translated nothing. He merely invented a story, using the drawings on the
papyrii to flesh it out. It doesn't take a mind reader to see that, Kerry.

>nor WHICH ONES Smith used. There is simply no description of
>WHICH pieces Joseph Smith used.

Perhaps you should re-read Abraham 1:6-17.

>The anti-Mormons are lying when they say
>the small fragments of the papyri we now possess are ALL the papyri the
>Prophet owned.

Please quote the "anti-Mormons" who have said that. And even if some did, it
would be irrelevant.

>The fragments represent a mere 13% of what Joseph Smith once
>owned.

Irrelevant, because the ones that he claimed were from the BoA are published
IN
the BoA. If he had thought any "missing" portions related to the BoA, he
would
have published them before they were "lost."

>Until the critics become honest enough to admit this, I see no
>possible continuing dialogue with any intelligence with them.
>
>Kerry A. Shirts

I agree with that statement, except for replacing the word "Mormons" for
"critics."

Randy J.

Randy quoted Joseph Smith's diary:

>> 23 February 1842:
>> gave Reuben Hedlock instructions concerning the cut for the altar & Gods
>in the
>> RECORDS OF ABRAHAM. as designed for the Times and Seasons.

Kerry (FAIR's "Director of Research") Shirts wrote:

>And this says anything about WHICH papyri Smith used as his translation?

I responded:

Uhhh.....Kerry, I realize you're brain dead, but maybe you could get somebody
to read it and explain it to you. Read Joseph Smith's journal entry again.
And
again, if you need to.

>Pray tell please demonstrate how Papyri Joseph Smith #'s 10 and 11 are
>mentioned here at all.....go ahead, show us yer stuff dude.

Read the quote again, Kerry. What did JS tell Hedlock to copy for the Times
and Seasons? "The cut for the altar and gods in the RECORDS OF ABRAHAM."

>> 24 February 1842:
>> was explaining the RECORDS OF ABRAHAM to the recorder.

>And THIS proves Smith actually translated the papyri #'s 10 and 11???
>Surely you jest! There is NOTHING here identifying WHICH PAPYRI Smith used.

Just a continuation of what I quoted above.

>> 1 March 1842:
>> Correcting the first plate or cut of the RECORDS OF FATHER ABRAHAM
>prepared by
>> Reuben Hedlock for the Times and Seasons

>Nothing here about papyri #'s 10 and 11 either

The quote is self-explanatory for non-brainwashed people, Kerry. The "cut"
Hedlock prepared for publishing in the Times and Seasons contained the
"RECORDS OF FATHER ABRAHAM." Read Abraham 1:12.

>.....you read WAY TOO MUCH
>into all this Jordo,

Hmmm....I read it exactly as JS wrote it, in his own diary. The fact that it
destroys your entire "missing scroll theory" and rocks your pathetic little
junior apologist career is not my problem.

>but then you HAVE to or you are bankrupt. Gee that I
>had these mind reading skills!

Who needs mind-reading skills? All *I* need is basic READING skills, sans the
obfuscating opinions of Mormon apologists.

>> 2 March 1842:
>> Read the Proof of the "Times and Seasons" as Editor for the first time,
>No.
>> 9-Vol 3d in which is the commencement of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM.

>And THIS identifies the exact fragments of #'s 10 and 11 of the papyri???

It continues the theme.

>> 4 March 1842:
>> Exhibiting the BOOK OF ABRAHAM in the ORIGINAL, to Bro. Reuben Hedlock,
>so that
>> he might take the size of the several plates or cuts. and prepare the
>blocks
>> for the Times and Seasons. & also gave instruction concerning the
>arrangement
>> of the WRITING on the large cut. illustrating the PRINCIPLES OF
>ASTRONOMY.

>And THIS identifies anywhere that the fragments 10 and 11 were used???

What does the phrase "Exhibiting the Book of Abraham *IN THE ORIGINAL*,....so
that he might take the size of the several plates or cuts...for the Times and
Seasons..." mean to you, Kerry?
What was the "original" of the BOA? Obviously, JS claimed it to be on his
papyrii. Which papyrii did JS claim it was on? The ones he instructed
Hedlock
to publish in the T&S.
JS even instructed Hedlock on the "arrangement of the writing on the large
cut," obviously referring to Facsimile 3.

>> 8 March 1842:
>> Commenced Translating from the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, for the 10 No. of the
>Times &
>> Seasons

>WHere is the fragments 10 and 11 ever mentioned here??? No source
>documentation at all.....

Kerry, JS never numbered the fragments. But his diary quotes explain exactly
which pieces he was referring to. You'll obviously have to clear your mind of
years of Nibleycrap to understand it, though.

>> 9 March 1842:
>> continued the TRANSLATION of the BOOK OF ABRAHAM

>Nor are the original fragments identified here either.

It continues the theme. There's no reason to believe that he wasn't
"translating" from the fragments he was instructing Hedlock on---especially
seeing as how hieratic characters from the Sen-Sen text appear in the margins
of three original BoA manuscripts, as though JS wanted the world to believe
that those characters were the actual writings of Abraham, and the English
text
within was the English translation of them.

>> All quotes from "The Papers of Joseph Smith", Deseret Book, 1992.

>> "The Book of Abraham," 1:12:
>>
>> "that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the
>> representation AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS RECORD."

>Is this an identification of fragments 10 and 11 as we now possess them?

"Abraham" is obviously referring to Facsimile No. 1. The "record" Abraham
speaks of HAS to be the Sen-Sen characters, because they originally were
attached to the "lion-couch scene" which appeared "at the commencement of this
record."

"Q: Are the three facsimiles related to each other?
A: Definitely, by all being attached to one and the same document, namely, the
Joseph Smith Papyri X and XI, which contain a text of the Egyptian Book of
Breathings. Facsimile No. 1 is followed immediately on its left-hand margin
by
Joseph Smith Papyrus XI, which begins the Book of Breathings. Someone cut
them
apart, but the fibre edges of their two margins still match neatly. Facsimile
No. 1 thus serves as a sort of frontispiece."
----Hugh Nibley, "Ensign" magazine, March 1976, page 34.

>If you can PROVE these quotes actually identify THE
>SPECIFIC fragments, I'll QUIT MORMONISM Jordan........

Please don't, Kerry. What would I do for fun?

>> Now, Woody, a question:
>>
>> How long are you, and other Mormons on ARM, going to keep up the lie that
>"we
>> don't have the source material for the Book of Abraham?"

>How long are you going to keep mind reading and confusing the issues
>Jordan?

You mean confusing the "missing scroll theory" that Mormon apologists have
spent 30 years developing and repeating, only to see it dashed to pieces by
perusing a few words from JS' own diary?

>How long are you going to ignore that we have only 13% of the
>papyri that Joseph Smith once owned?

Already covered that irrelevant strawman of yours, Kerry. If there is another
missing 87%, as you believe, none of it would relate to what JS claimed was
"the writings of Abraham." There could be another 587% missing; but the part
that JS claimed was the BoA is published IN the BoA.

It is obvious, from

a) JS' own diary entries, giving descriptions, details, and instructions on
the
facsimiles,

b) from his use of the three facsimiles both to illustrate the BoA and to
furnish text for, and

c) his use of hieratic characters from the Sen-Sen text in both his BoA
manuscript and his EA&G,

that the three facsimiles that are published in your BoA today are what JS
wished the world to believe was his source for the BoA.

>Kerry A. "Love yer sleight of hand tricks, but I'm after truth, not nitwit
>scholarship as you present" Shirts

I guess my scholarship will have to be judged by the individual reader,
Kerry.

"Sleight of hand tricks?" I quoted JS' exact words from his own journal,
published by Deseret Book and edited by Dean Jessee. It's not my fault that
the
plain facts destroy your entire "missing scroll theory."

Get out yer cryin' towel, bud. The BoA is a dead Horus.

Randy J.

Another Mopologist---and FARMS contributor---Russell McGregor chimed in. He tried to discredit reports of what Joseph Smith had said about the papyrii. My comments or quotes will have >>two arrows or no arrows, and Russell's will have >one arrow. Russell wrote:

>>>the Book of Moses was not translated from the papyri *and NEVER purported to be*.

Randy responded:

>>It's easy to get this stuff confused, because Joseph Smith claimed so
many
>> different things about the papyrus.

>Randy, there is a difference between what Joseph Smith claimed, and what
others claim that he claimed.

But if SEVERAL people reported that JS said certain things, and they all
corroborate each other, then it is likely that he said them.

>For example:

> > Josiah Quincy reported on his 1844 visit
> > with JS:

> See what I mean? This isn't Joseph's claim; it's Josiah's claim about
> what Joseph claimed.

It's what Quincy reported from his own 1844 interview with JS; that same
interview has been used by Mormon apologists to support JS for over 100
years. Quincy's "Figures of the Past", from which I quoted this, also
contains the oft-repeated "faith-promoting" account:

"It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of
generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What
historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful
influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And is by no means
impossible that the answer to the interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph
Smith, the Mormon prophet."

Mormon writer Dr. James R. Clark supported the accuracy of Quincy's report in
his "Story of the Pearl of Great Price," p. 71:

"Charles Francis Adams of the famous colonial Adams family accompanied Josiah
Quincy to Nauvoo. According to Josiah Quincy, he wrote his chapter in
"Figures of the Past" (1883) on Joseph Smith at Nauvoo on the basis of
letters written at the time and sent to Boston, and the diary of his
traveling companion Charles Francis Adams."

In addition, JS made similar statements about the mummies and papyrus which
were recorded by others, including his own followers. So it is disingenuous
for you to attempt to dismiss Quincy's report simply because it was not
written by JS' hand (to coin a phrase). If you wish to dismiss everything
said or written about JS that he himself did not say or write, then you'll
have to dump practically every historical document of Mormonism, including
the "scriptures."
If you dismiss Quincy's words about the papyrii, then you must dismiss his
complimentary remarks about JS as well. Poor credibility, you know.

>> "Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us.

>Interrupting here to note that parchment is made from leather, whereas
papyrus is made from a plant. This is by no means an important point,
but it does show that Quincy wasn't trying really hard to be accurate
> here.

You're right, it's a typically inconsequential, trivial point from you, and
it doesn't reflect on Quincy's accuracy in the least, but it says a lot about
your pettiness.
Quincy wasn't an antiquities expert; he was a writer. If you held Joseph
Smith to the same standard of accuracy that you apparently hold Josiah
Quincy, you'd have dumped Mormonism long ago.

>"They were
> preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the
handwriting
> of Abraham, the father of the Faithful,' said the prophet. 'This is
the
> autograph of Moses, and those lines were written by his brother Aaron."

Russell wrote:

>This is called "free embellishment."

It is what Quincy reported JS as saying. Since you weren't there, and Quincy
was, your assertion of "embellishment" is worthless.

>Joseph Smith never identified any
> papyrus as containing anyone's "handwriting."

JS' exact words, which he wrote in the introduction to the BoA, was that the
papyrus was written by the actual hand of Abraham. Every other statement by
him, by his followers, and by other eyewitnesses support that contention.
Nowhere did JS say it was a "copy," or imply in any way that the papyrii was
not written by the actual hand of Abraham himself. Since Quincy interviewed
JS personally, and you did not, and Quincy's report is supported by all other
statements of the time, I will accept Quincy's word that Smith actually said
those words, rather than your ridiculous attempt in 1999 to assert otherwise.

>It is quite absurd to suggest that one papyrus would contain the
"autographs" of >men who lived at least 500 years apart.

I agree, but that is nevertheless exactly what JS said. His first statement
about the papyrus was "I....found that one of the rolls contained the
writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph, etc...." (HoC, 2:235).
He then claimed "Thus I have given a brief history of the manner in which the
writings of the Fathers, Abraham, and Joseph have been preserved and how I
came into possession of the same...." (HoC, 2:350).

Parley P. Pratt repeated the claim that the papyrus contained the actual
writings of Abraham and Joseph in the "Millenial Star," July 1, 1842:

"We have much pleasure this month in being able to give an illustration and
extract from the BOOK OF ABRAHAM; a book of higher antiquity than any portion
of the Bible......The record is now in course of translation.....and proves
to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and
finished by Joseph when in Egypt. After his death, it is supposed they were
preserved in the family of the Pharoahs and afterwards hid up with the
embalmed body of the female with whom they were found."

Pratt's words repeat the idea that the papyrus was the actual medium that
Abraham and Joseph personally had written upon; if they were a "copy", as
some modern Mormons attempt to claim, there would have been no need for them
to be "preserved in the family of the Phaoroahs and afterwards hid up" inside
a later mummy. The ONLY reason Mormon apologists claim it was a "copy" is
because the papyrii have been dated to the first century, rather than to the
time of Abraham. The text of the BoA itself refutes the "copy" assertion; in
1:12, "Abraham" could not refer us to the "representation at the commencement
of this record", unless he had the actual "representation" (the lion-couch
scene) before him with which to refer his readers TO.
Obviously, "Abraham" could not predict or control what alleged "copyists" did
1500 years after his time; he could not know if "copyists" would faithfully
re-arrange his writings in correct order; therefore, the only person who
could have referred us to a particular illustration in a particular place was
the writer himself.
Of course, since the papyrus is part of the "Book of the Dead," from the 1st
century, having nothing to do with "Abraham," the issue of it being Abraham's
actual handwriting is moot. The real issue is Joseph Smith's honesty and
credibility.
Since the accompanying hypocephalus, which JS identified as part of the BoA,
did not even appear in the Egyptian religion until about 600-900 BC,
centuries after the time of Abraham, it is impossible for the hypocephalus to
have even been a "copy" of anything "Abraham" drew. That fact alone sinks
the "copy" theory, but there is yet another account that sinks it even
deeper----an interview with Lucy Mack Smith from 1845, while she was still
showing the antiquities publicly:

"Her story with regard to the mummies (learned from Joe), is about as
follows: It seems that, for the express purpose of corroborating the 'brass
plates' which were one day to be dug up, and translated as the 'Book of
Mormon' the angel of the Lord, three thousand years ago, appeared to Joseph
in Egypt and delivered to him a wooden case, containing a roll of papyrus,
which was to be buried by him with the family of one of the patriarchs; that
Joseph did so, depositing the case on the Queen's breast, where it lay until
the discovery of the 'brass plates,' the Lord then causing the bodies to be
discovered also and conveyed with the identical deposit of Joseph into the
hands of 'Joe'.....accordingly having already deciphered the plates, he made
short work of the hieroglyphics..." (St. Louis "Reveille," September, 1845,
quoted in Clark, p. 149).

Note that Lucy's remarks corroborate Pratt's comment that the papyrii were
actually from the time of Joseph of Egypt, who himself installed the papyrii
into the mummy case. Obviously, neither Pratt or Lucy would invent such a
bold common claim; they had to have heard it from JS. Pratt said it in 1842;
Lucy said the same thing in 1845. Nowhere do we see a hint of an idea that
the papryii that JS owned was a "copy" of an earlier writing; the assertion
is clear that JS wanted the world to believe the papyrii to be an original
work, begun by Abraham, "finished by Joseph," and put into the mummy case by
Joseph himself.

Goodbye, "copy of a copy" theory. It goes into the round file along with the
"missing scroll" theory and the "mnemonic device" theory.

>> "Here we
> have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed
the first
> Book of Genesis.' The parchment showed a rude drawing of a man and
woman, and
>> a serpent walking upon a pair of legs." (Figures of the Past, p.
385.)

>Which is an authentic point; others reported such pictures, and there
seem to have been at least two of them. But the fact that Quincy had
seen the picture does not prove that Joseph said any part of what is
> reported above.

The fact that you concede his accuracy on the description of the picture, yet
question his accurate reporting of JS' words, means that you are a zealous
fanatic who will call someone a liar, without evidence or support, for no
other reason other than to make JS look better. However, even aside from
that, you are wrong anyway, because Quincy's remarks are corroborated by
other witnesses.

>I can show you a picture of me in the North Visitors'
Centre on Temple Square in August of 1986. If I published an account of
an interview with President Benson, would that picture serve to prove
> the accuracy of my report?

It can, if your report could be corroborated by other witnesses and
statements, which Quincy's was.

>JS also spoke of 'Moses' in relation to the papyrus to the 'Quincy
Whig'
> reporter on October 17, 1840:
> "'The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case,' said
he, 'is one
> of the pharoahs who sat upon the throne of Egypt, and the female figure by it
> was probably one of the daughters. It may have been the Princess
Thermutis.'
> I replied, 'The same that rescued Moses from the waters of the
Nile?'....The
> prophet replied, 'It is not improbable.....' "

Russell wrote:

>Correction: the 'Quincy Whig' reporter mentioned Moses, and *said* that
>Joseph agreed with *him*.

Exactly. If JS did not agree that the mummy could have been "Thermutis," he
should have said so, but he did not. The mummies have been dated to about
the 1st century. The fact that JS had no clue as to their date, and even
theorized that they could have dated to Moses' time, is further evidence that
JS had no expertise or credibility on the subject, as is also his claim that
the mummies were from the "family of the Pharoahs," which they were not.

>>So when (another poster named) Brent mentioned the "writings of Moses" in relation to the
papyrus, we
> must remember that JS himself claimed that the papyrus contained
information
> about Moses as well as Abraham and Joseph, although it wasn't his 1830
revision
> > of Genesis that is now called the "Book of Moses" in the PGP.

>What we *really* need to remember is that various *other parties*
claimed that Joseph claimed that the papyri contained information about
Moses. Let us not fall into the trap of automatically attributing to
>Joseph everything that someone else wants to attribute to him.

And let us not fall into the trap of questioning the accuracy of those
attributions without showing some evidence for it.
There's at least one other corroborative quote on this issue from JS' own
mother. Mormons use the 1843 Charlotte Haven recollection to
support the BoA. Here is a more complete recitation of Haven's visit with
Lucy Mack Smith:

"From there we called on Joseph's mother.....she lit a candle and conducted
us up a short, narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one
side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King
Onitus and his royal household,--one she did not know. Then she took up what
seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said 'This is the leg of
Pharoah's daughter, the one that saved Moses.'.....Then she turned to a long
table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying
it was 'the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit,'
and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very
much like passages from the Old Testament...she said she read it through the
inspiration of her son Joseph,...in the same way she interpreted to us
hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the
serpent...who was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs
formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, 'But serpents don't
have legs.' 'They did before the fall,' she asserted with perfect
confidence." (Overland Monthly, December 1890, pp. 623-24).

Note that Haven's 1843 quote of Lucy Smith corroborates the "Quincy Whig's"
1840 quote of JS about "Pharoah's daughter that saved Moses." Obviously, the
only way that both the 1840 "Whig" reporter and Haven in 1843 could have
reported similar statements, was if JS himself had made the statements.
Certainly old "Mother Smith" would not have made such a claim about the
mummies without having first heard it from her "inspired prophet" son. Two
witnesses three years apart could not have invented details that mirrored
each other; therefore, they had to have gotten their information from the
Smiths.

Note also Lucy's statement about the "serpent with legs." That corroborates
exactly Josiah Quincy's report of his 1844 interview with JS:

"'And now come with me,' said the prophet 'and I will show you the
curiosities.'...There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the
room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies,
shrunken and black with age. 'These are mummies,' said the exhibitor. 'I
want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great
man in his day. Why, that was Pharoah Necho, King of Egypt!' Some
parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us......the
parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and a woman, and a
serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of
providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion.
'Why, that's as plain as a pikestaff,' was the rejoinder. 'Before the Fall
snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of
them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man.' We were further
assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these
mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct
inspiration...'Gentlemen,' said this bourgeois Mohammed, as he closed the
cabinets, 'those who see these curiosities generally pay my mother a quarter
of a dollar."

Note that Quincy's quote of JS about the serpent losing his legs in 'the
Fall' dovetails with Lucy Mack Smith's identical comment; obviously, for you
to believe that the idea didn't come from JS, you would have to opine that
Quincy and Haven, in visits a year apart, somehow conspired to tell a
common fantastic lie, purely to make JS look bad. Note also that JS claimed
the
legged serpent to be the same that "beguiled" Eve in the Garden; he was wrong
in that assertion as well, as the legged serpent does not depict a Biblical
scene, but is an oft-repeated, common
figure from the Book of the Dead.

So, in toto, we've got at least six different sources telling a consistent
story about JS and what he claimed about the papyrii:

1. The "Whig" reporter's 1840 interview with JS
2. JS' 1842 introduction to the BoA
3. Pratt's 1842 remarks
4. Haven's 1843 visit and recollection
5. Josiah Quincy's 1844 interview
6. The "St. Louis Reveille" 1845 interview with Lucy Smith

All of those accounts are consistent with each other, and combine to destroy
your assertion.

Note also JS' revealing comment about his mother showing the antiquities for
money.
Mormonism was the Smith Family Business; they used the Egyptian antiquities
like a Ripley sideshow. Lucy's fantastic statements to Haven, pretending to
read 'Hebrew and Sanscrit,' indicates that she had made herself into a
carnival pitchman, somewhat reminiscent of her son's early "peep-stoning"
trade, and a continuation of her "following the faculty of Abrac"; there's no
telling how many of Nauvoo's 12,000 Mormons paid her a quarter to see the
mummies; but I'm sure P. T. Barnum would have been impressed with the amount.

So, what was JS' motivation for publishing the BoA? To bring forth 'new
scripture' to the masses? Nope, he was out to make a buck like mom was:

"In February, 1843, John Taylor indicated to the Saints and subscribers that
if their subscriptions were not kept current they would miss the additional
translations from the Book of Abraham.....'We would respectfully announce to
those of our subscribers...who commenced their subscription for the Times and
Seasons at the time when Brother Joseph took the editorial department that
the term for which they subscribed is nearly at a close.....We have given
this timely notice that our friends may prepare themselves......we have the
promise of Br. Joseph, to furnish us with further extracts from the Book of
Abraham.'" (Clark, p. 98).

When one is researching JS' motives, it's always best to follow the money.

>When Joseph is allowed to tell his own story, it is sober, consistent,
and with the exception of his accounts of hierophanies, not at all
> strange or fantastic.

I'd say that the evidence I've laid out pretty much blows that assertion to
bits.

>When others step forward to help him out, the
>story becomes increasingly bizarre.

It certainly appears that Parley P. Pratt, Charlotte Haven, and Lucy Mack
Smith helped paint JS as sufficiently bizarre. And they are all FRIENDLY
witnesses.
As concerning the other witnesses, you are theorizing that all the people who
reported JS' words were liars or incredible. You have no foundation for your
theory. JS was hardly "sober and consistent" in his statements on the
papyrus or many other issues; throughout his career, he made wild, fantastic,
absurd, unsupportable claims about antiquities, geographical sites, Biblical
themes, etc. His "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" is the very DEFINITION of
"strange and fantastic." His statements about the papyrii are no more
"strange or fantastic" than his claims about the Garden of Eden being in
Missouri, Indians being cursed by God, ancient writings on gold plates,
visions of angels, or 100 other silly claims of his. I don't see you rushing
to discredit those wild, unsupportable claims; the ONLY reason you wish to
discredit this one issue is because the papyrus have been dated far too late
to have been written "by the hand of Abraham," so you are forced to call many
people liars in order to support JS' "strange and fantastic" claims.

>> It's easily confused.

>That depends upon one's approach. If we start with Joseph's own
accounts, and stick with the scriptures *he* caused to be published,
> there is little cause for confusion.

<chuckle> JS himself "stuck" so firmly to his "scriptures" that he himself
published, that he had to make hundreds of revisions in the D&C in the two
short years between the 1833 and 1835 editions. Everything he wrote is full
of inconsistencies and unsupportable assertions, and many of his teachings
have had to be redacted, rescinded or disavowed. His statements on the
papyrus are no different. He was more "confused" about the papyrus than
anything else in his entire life.

>If we cast around looking for
anything and everything that we can use as ammunition against him, it
>does indeed become mightily confusing, because *just like today*, the
critics then did not care about the subject enough to make the effort to
>get it right.

We don't have to "look" for ammunition against the BoA; it screams at us.
Your pontification about "the critics" is inappropriate and unjustified, and
just makes you appear worse.

>If those who want to criticise the Pearl of Great Price would actually
read that volume -- it is, after all, fairly small -- *instead* of
relying upon hostile diatribes on the papyri, they would trip themselves
>up far less often.

Here you throw the unfounded "critics just haven't read the book" lunacy out
from your Mormon ivory tower with arrogance and disdain upon us poor, lost
"Gentiles."
The actual text of the BoA is as damning as the papyrii issues, because the
text is an obvious reflection of JS' modern milieu, just as the BOM was. The
stamp of the 19th century is all over it.
The "fairly small"--ness of the BoA is another point against its
authenticity. It should not have taken the "prophet" seven years to
"translate" 15 pages.
And you really should read Thomas Dick's 1829 "Philosophy of a Future State."

>Russell C. McGregor
--
>"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)

It is obvious that when it comes to ancient Egyptian papyrii, JS' opinion
wasn't worth a straw either.

Randy J.

Fascinating reading, randy. Thanks for posting this.
And for any who don't know: Kerry Sheets (who tries to rake randy over the coals as a mormon apologist extraordinaire) is no longer a mormon. His valiant attempt at defense eventually led him to the randy's conclusion -- that it's a fraud. How about that.

That has to be a delicious icing on the cake for Randy.

"That has to be a delicious icing on the cake for Randy."

I'm glad that Kerry saw the light for his and his family and friends' sake. I did this research and posted this info to show other ARM readers that the Mopologists' theories and publications re: the BOA are full of misinformation and faulty assumptions and conclusions. I repeat this stuff here on RFM for the newbies who have never studied the issues.

>If you can PROVE these quotes actually identify THE
>SPECIFIC fragments, I'll QUIT MORMONISM Jordan........

Please don't, Kerry. What would I do for fun?

LolololololololololololLolololololololololololLololololololololololol!!!!!!!

"Neos, scholarly rebuttals have been offered to all of the claims that are made
in the websites you list. Two of your sites you list are run by former ARM
posters Kerry Shirts and Woody Brison. I have repeatedly rebutted all of their
alleged 'evidence"

There's one other Mormon apologetic approach which is to find parallels between the translation and ancient Egyptians. These parallels can be refuted below.


http://signaturebooks.com/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

This post doesn't involve an apologist, but is an answer to a question raised by an Ex-Mormon. He wanted to know why, if the papyrii were so important, did the church allow them to be sold. I answered his question by relating the story based on the research I had done on the subject up to that point.

Agkistrodon wrote:

>All this is very fine and dandy, Randy, but I've got a real problem
unrelated to the papyri as lost or recovered or burned or whatever. It's
simply this, if these papyri were the book of Abraham written by his own
hand upon papyrus, then wouldn't they bear the same relationship to "holy
scripture" as the golden plates? That is, if it was such an original and
important document, or even a relative biggie, who in hell would sell them?

>Wouldn't a god with decent recordkeeping skills want to make sure that this
one went into the files right beside the plates? Why one and not the other?

>And if people of the church of the time believed this bunk as what Smith
said it was, how could they have ever allowed it to be sold to an
intellectual? Why would not BY and his bunch save it? Maybe because it was
safer to get rid of it?

>Agkistrodon

I'll give you the nutshell version: Smith's disciples put up about $2200 to
buy the artifacts in 1835, on the assumption that the "prophet" Smith could
"translate" them. As Smith was a fraud, that was impossible. Instead, he
merely offered bold statements as to their meaning, and since his background
was in occult folk-magic, Eastern mystery cults, and the Bible, he used those
elements to hypothesize an "outline" of what the depictions meant. He HAD to
give his disciples SOMETHING, or they would have questioned his "translating"
abilities; but he couldn't produce an actual "translation," because for all he
knew, someone schooled in early Egyptology might wander through town and inform
the public that Smith was full of crap (that was during the period when
Champollion's work was just beginning to reveal the mysterious ancient Egyptian
language and culture.) That is the reason for his gibberish "Book of Egyptian
Alphabet and Grammar." He produced that as a ruse, to make his followers think
he had some actual skills, and to "buy time" until he could come up with
something better.

Then, in 1842, he got his opportunity. John C. Bennett's expose' of polygamy
created a monumental shakeup in Smith's cast of characters and opportunites.
Smith fired Ebenezer Robinson as editor of the newspaper "Times and Seasons"
because Robinson rejected Smith's "secret wife" doctrine. Smith assumed
editorial control and ownership of the paper, and thus had a financial interest
in subscription sales. Meanwhile, as Smith had been studying the philosophies
of the ancient Kabbalah from his Jewish teachers Joshua Seixas and Alexander
Neibaur (first Mormon ancestor of Hugh Nibley), and those of contemporary
quasi-theologians such as Thomas Dick, in addition to FreeMasonry, Smith
decided to go ahead and produce a story that expressed elements of his
new-found philosophies, while also incorporating the hieroglyphs into what he
hoped would be a believable "translation." He published his "translation" in
three serialized parts, to maximize sales. His newspaper's front page carried
a large reproduction of "Facsimile No. 1," which he "purported to be from the
Book of Abraham." Of course, the headline wasn't any more true than a National
Enquirer headline that claims "Marie Osmond Has Martian Love Child"; but to
Smith, that was immaterial; his object was to sell papers, while simultaneously
"proof-texting" his "translating powers" for his followers, to prevent mass
apostasies in the wake of the Bennett revelations.

In addition to the newspaper sales, the Smiths also used the artifacts to make
a little money, by displaying them like a Barnumesque sideshow attraction.
Smith's mother, Lucy, acted as the "tour guide", charging disciples and
visitors a quarter to view the artifacts and papyrus, whilst she related
Joseph's "inspired" interpretations to them.

After Smith's murder, nearly all the Mormons left Nauvoo by early 1846. The
Smith family, however stayed. They rejected polygamy, and hated Brigham Young
with a passion, and they (rightfully) felt that he had "stolen" the church
leadership from their family. As there were few anti-polygamy Mormons left for
the Smith family to interact with, they soon lost interest in things Mormon,
and attended Methodist services. Because the tourist business had dried up,
the Smiths had no further use for the artifacts, so they sold them to the St.
Louis Museum. (IIRC, it was Smith's brother William who handled the actual
sale.) From there, they were sold to the Chicago Museum, where some of them
were purportedly lost in the fire. Fortunately, as I've related, Gustavus
Seyffarth gave his interpretation of the scrolls as funerary documents before
they were lost, so we have scholarly documentation that the supposedly
"missing" papyrus had no more to do with "Abraham" than do the surviving
fragments.

Meanwhile, back in SLC, some Utah Mormon leaders had begun considering Smith's
"Book of Abraham" that had been published in the 1842 "Times and Seasons."
They offered that since Smith's BOA had been a "translation of some ancient
records," just as the BOM had purportedly been, they advocated that the BOA
should be "sustained" as "scripture" along with the BOM, and published in the
Mormon canon, which they did in 1880.

So, it wasn't Smith, Young, or any other Mormon leaders who allowed the
artifacts to get away. It was his own family, who sold them because they held
no further money-making value for them. And the Utah Mormons didn't care about
them either, because they had Smith's "inspired translation" of them, which in
their minds, was of higher "value" than the papyrii itself. Interest in the
actual fragments swelled only after similar renditions of the "Book of
Breathings" were found in catacombs, and scholars recognized that as those
related to funerary rites, then so did the ones that Smith had worked from; and
therefore, Smith's fragments couldn't possibly have anything to do with the
Biblical Abraham, nor anything in the Judeo-Christian religion. The modern
controversy over the artifacts' meaning began in earnest when Episcopalian
Bishop Spalding of SLC sent copies of the "facsimiles" to eight of the world's
most noted scholars of Egyptology in 1912, and they all replied with their
statements that Smith was utterly clueless on the papyrus' true meaning. That
forced Mormon apologists to begin their campaign of questioning the findings of
the scholars, and to offer their wild theories about why Smith's
interpretations don't match the scholars', which campaign continues to this
day. So, 159 years after Smith first published his BOA, today's "true
believing" Mormons are forced to defend a bogus document that was originally
published to make a few bucks.

And of course, the fact that Smith's family sold the artifacts strongly
suggests that they knew that Smith's interpretations of them were bogus. And
that gives us a clue as to what Smith's family privately knew and believed
about the "gold plates" story, as well.

Randy J.

This is overwhelmingly amazing information! Thank you, Randy!

"This is overwhelmingly amazing information! Thank you, Randy!"

You're welcome, but do you mean that you, a FAIR apologist, weren't already aware of this material? :-)

This is what I did for about eight years---researching Mormon history and apologetic claims, and debating the issues with true believing Mormons. Occasionally, when a subject comes up here on RFM, I'll post stuff like this to add more info for newbies.

I hadn't engaged Mormon apologists for many years, until I had the occasion to a couple of months ago. Here's the back-and-forth I had with two guys named Blake Ostler and Stephen Smoot, if you like reading this sort of thing:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1841923,1841923#msg-1841923

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1844928,1844928#msg-1844928

Where can one read the rest of the book of Abraham that is not contained in the PoGP?

"Where can one read the rest of the book of Abraham that is not contained in the PoGP?"

As far as I know, that's all there is to it. Joseph Smith only came up with enough story material to publish in a few editions of his newspaper, in order to boost sales and subscriptions. I assume that he couldn't come up with any more than that. This happened in 1842, when he was fighting off the accusations of John C. Bennett and fighting extradition to Missouri on the Boggs shooting charges. So maybe he was just too busy to write more.