I really want to believe the LDS Church is true, but there seems to be no credibilty in regards to the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles that are included with the Book of Abraham are totally discredited by real Egyptologists. He seemed to have no understanding of the Egyptian characters and figures that are in those facsimiles.

On the other hand my LDS relatives(brothers and sisters) quote Kerry Shirts and propose "the missing scrolls theory" which really sounds more like a cop out/cover your A** theory, but I really have no scholarly response for them.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/lostbook.htm

Please help me.

CM

Virtually everything that Joseph Smith "translated" or "received as revelation from God" can be easily proven false. From an essay my wife and I wrote:

Part I - Joseph Smith’s translations
Joseph Smith claimed to have translated a number of books from ancient sources. These include The Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, The Kinderhook Plates, and The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. There are, unfortunately, many problems with all of the translations. Further, many of his revelations and prophecies were canonized at one point, only to be declared “spiritual teachings,” at another, or they were changed from one publishing to the next.

The Book of Abraham
The papyri that Joseph Smith stated that he translated the Book of Abraham from were lost for many years, only to turn up in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1966. Both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists were called in to verify that they were the same scrolls and to translate them. After evaluating them, Egyptologists from both groups announced that the scrolls were funerary scrolls that had nothing to do with the texts of The Book of Abraham, and are a copy of The Hor Book of Breathings, a funerary scroll (Wikipedia - Book of Abraham See also the link at the end of this paragraph for an LDS source confirming what they are.) The notes that announced what images in the facsimiles represented had nothing to do with the real meanings of the images. A few easily spotted errors include listing canopic jars as idolatrous gods (Facsimile 1, figures 5-8), and designating some clearly female characters as male (Facsimile 1 figures 2 and 4). Carrie was able to spot those two issues on her own – without looking anywhere else for information – based on college-level knowledge of costume history and mummification practices and techniques. Facsimile 2, Figure 7 also has an image of a fertility god with an enormous erection and lists it as being God sitting on his throne (Kay Burmingham, An American Fraud). To see for yourself what a true believing LDS Egyptologist says the papyri say, a complete translation of the Book of Abraham papyri (more correctly referred to as The Hor Book of Breathings), translated by BYU associate research professor from the department of ancient scripture at BYU, can be found here - Michael Rhodes' Translation of Book of Abraham Papyri

The Kinderhook Plates
Another example of Joseph Smith’s false translation powers involves the Kinderhook plates. The Kinderhook plates were a set of plates made by people near Kinderhook, Illinois who intended to have Joseph Smith try to translate them so, after he claimed to translate them, they could expose him as a fraud. The plates were presented to Smith and he, as the forgers anticipated, pretended the ability to translate them, claiming that they were written by a righteous Jaredite (History of the Church Vol. 5). Ironically, it wasn’t until years later that any of the forgers came forward with the truth about the plates and by that time, the plates were thought lost. However, one of the plates turned up in 1920 and scientific testing in 1980 proved that they were products of 19th century metalworking (LDS.org - 1981 Ensign - Kinderhook Plates). Why would any person with the slightest degree of inspiration declare that a deliberate hoax contained the writings of a righteous Jaredite?

The Book of Mormon
Joseph Smith claims that he translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates and the Book of Mormon is “…The most correct of any book on Earth,” (Introduction, The Book of Mormon, 1981 edition). However, there are many parts of The Book of Mormon that are identical to the King James Version of the Bible. Some of these passages incorporate parts where the KJV translation of the Bible included the Italics to indicate where words were added that weren’t in the Hebrew text, but necessary for smooth English comprehension. The Book of Mormon, despite the fact that those translation issues from Reformed Egyptian to English would be significantly different from Hebrew to English, has the exact same passages with the exact same wording. Some examples of this can be found in Mosiah 14 and Isaiah 53, both of which are word for word identical with the only difference being that the Book of Mormon text does not italicize and of the italicized words in the KJV.

Furthermore, when Joseph Smith created his translation of the Bible, he translated parts of the Bible differently than both the corresponding KJV texts and the Book of Mormon texts that are identical or very similar to the KJV. We find it impossible to understand how the “most correct book of any on Earth” could be wrong when a later translation of the Bible (written by the same man, with the same “prophetic inspiration”) declares a different meaning for those verses. Either one book or the other translated the verses wrong and since both had the same translator, it would mean that the translator was a false prophet and both were wrong.

The Greek Psalters
There are also the incidents with the Greek Psalters, although they are less clearly documented and less relevant than the previously mentioned failures of translation (Henry Caswall, Mormonism and Its Author). They do, however, continue to establish a pattern of Joseph Smith proclaiming that he is able to translate things that A) He cannot translate and his attempts at doing so fail and, B) Aren’t even what he claims they are.

Doctrine and Covenants and The Book of Commandments.
The Book of Commandments was the precursor to the Doctrine and Covenants. Many of the revelations made their way from the first book to the next without any noteworthy changes being made to them (The Book of Commandments doesn’t typically use last names, whereas D&C does, but that really doesn’t matter), but there were many changes that were made from one book to the next. The Book of Commandments chapter 4, which corresponds to D&C Section 5, has some changes that completely change the meaning of the section. Where TBoC 5, paragraph 2 indicates clearly that Joseph Smith’s only gift will be to translate The Book of Mormon, the corresponding D&C 5:2-4 changes who the revelation is directed toward and implies that Joseph Smith will be granted other gifts than just translation. (Book of Commandments)

Beyond that, an entire 68 page portion of the Doctrine and Covenants was removed in 1921. The original D&C contained a section for Theology known as the Lectures on Faith. Even though these lectures were considered doctrine for nearly 100 years, they were eventually removed – likely due to the fact that they taught that God was a spirit and that God the Father and Jesus Christ made up the two members of the Godhead (D&C 1835 Edition, Lecture fifth of faith, Section V, Paragraph 2).

Joseph Smith created three canonical books of scripture and worked on translations for several other “holy” works, but every single one of them either contradicts another one, underwent doctrinal changes, or turned out to be completely fraudulent. By their fruits ye shall know them…

When you consider the fact that EVERYTHING he wrote "by the power of God" contains serious errors that indicate that there was no divine influence in the work, any explanation for the Book of Abraham - other than "Joseph Smith wrote it himself" - becomes extremely difficult to justify even considering.

Also, this is a very handy article on Wikipedia that helps in understanding the Book of Mormon's flaws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.

The Book of Abraham is only the easiest to disprove with little research, but if you do more, you realize that you've only scratched the surface with BoA.

It's true, we have much of the Breathings of Hor scroll and confirmed in several ways that Joseph Smith did indeed use them to create the Book of Abraham, but it's also true that there is much of that scroll that was never recovered (likely burned in the Chicago fire). Here's what I know about the missing scroll:

1) It was never unrolled. Rolling out a Egyptian scrolls is a sensitive business. They have to be handled with care or you risk damaging them. The scroll was partially unrolled, and we have those portions today, but the inner part was never seen. Using damage marks on the edges of the existing scroll we have been able to determine the circumference of the original scroll and estimate how much content was in the inner portion of the scroll. It's not much - certainly not enough to provide the Book of Abraham assuming the characters are the same size as the existing scroll.

2) The material on the inner portion of the scroll certainly would have been similar to the material in the portion we have today. Certainly it would have still contained the Breathings of Hor, which dates to over a thousand years after the time of Abraham. How likely is it, do you think, that the Egyptian who wrote the Breathings of Hor, which has nothing to do with Judaisms or its traditions in the slightest, decided to include at the end what would have been a thousand year old text of unrelated content? Not very.

3) The material on the inner portion of the scroll is irrelevant anyway, because we know from the facsimiles and the writings and words of Joseph Smith himself that the Book of Abraham actually came from the portion we have today, and not any other scroll, rolled up or otherwise.

joesmithsleftteste Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you consider the fact that EVERYTHING he
> wrote "by the power of God" contains serious
> errors that indicate that there was no divine
> influence in the work, any explanation for the
> Book of Abraham - other than "Joseph Smith wrote
> it himself" - becomes extremely difficult to
> justify even considering.
>
> Also, this is a very handy article on Wikipedia
> that helps in understanding the Book of Mormon's
> flaws.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_B
> ook_of_Mormon.
>
> The Book of Abraham is only the easiest to
> disprove with little research, but if you do more,
> you realize that you've only scratched the surface
> with BoA.



One of the details on the above link, which I think is interesting:

>>Matthew Roper, a FARMS writer, discussed the topic of goats in his article "Deer as 'Goat' and Pre-Columbian Domesticate". He noted that when early Spanish explorers visited the southeastern United States they found native Americans herding tame deer. Quoting an early historian of Spain, Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, recorded:

"In all these regions they visited, the Spaniards noticed herds of deer similar to our herds of cattle. These deer bring forth and nourish their young in the houses of the natives. During the daytime they wander freely through the woods in search of their food, and in the evening they come back to their little ones, who have been cared for, allowing themselves to be shut up in the courtyards and even to be milked, when they have suckled their fawns. The only milk the natives know is that of the does, from which they make cheese."

Roper also noted early Spanish colonists called native Mesoamerican brocket deer goats. He quotes, "Friar Diego de Landa noted, 'There are wild goats which the Indians call yuc.'" He quoted another friar in the late 16th century, "in Yucatán 'there are in that province ... great numbers of deer, and small goats'". >>


Here is an example of Smith's extensive use of information that was available to him in his era. He read or heard about the Friar's reference to an animal which he calls a goat and used it in the book of mormon. Smith even uses the term the Friar uses.
How many sources did JS use to gather his material?

You're absolutely right. The Book of Abraham clearly shows Joseph Smith's attempted translation of actual Egyptian characters. He points to some specific hieroglyphs and says, "Here's what these hieroglyphs mean." And what he says they mean is wrong.

Slam dunk proof Joseph Smith was not a prophet. The whole missing scrolls theory is completely missing the point. We don't NEED the "missing" scrolls. We have plenty of proof right there in the facsimiles included in every single copy of the Pearl of Great Price.

because JS couldn't even translate what we've got. And EVERY Book of Abraham comes with facsimiles, with little numbers telling exactly what JS said each portion meant. He got it wrong.

If he can't translate stuff we CAN look at, why would anyone believe he translated the Book of Mormon, which he wouldn't let anyone see? (The witnesses saw with their 'spiritual eyes').

"I really want to believe the LDS Church is true"


Why?



Wouldn't it be better to just want to know what the truth is?

From someone who isn't in the church it's easier said than done. When that's what you've grown up with your whole life or have believed in it for 10-20+ years it's not easy to just dismiss the whole thing. Also it's not just a belief, it's a way of life and you can't just leave that. He probably has a lot of family in the Mormon church too. It's a slow process and sometimes a person just has to be understanding.

Because sometimes the answers to why they want the church to be true are in fact - pretty uncomfortable answers.

Wanting the church to be true to avoid the shunning of being an apostate.

Wanting the church to be true because their god requires families to "make it together" in order to be together.

Wanting the church to be true because of the risk of losing a job.

Wanting the church to be true so that a life doesn't have to be further evaluated. No "starting over."


Those are all uncomfortable answers to face. But they point to deeper problems with Mormonism. And they are things that will have to be faced eventually.

I love this. I don't really wish it were true. I have, however, caught myself thinking that the current rift between us and our fellow ward members and other active friends would simply go away if it were true. It sure as hell doesn't mean that life would be better. It's much better now, even though exiting the church is rather like undergoing surgery for brain cancer, in the end, it's worth it. Cancer free.

See, I'm not so sure about that. My issue with mormonism isn't that it's false, it's that if it's true it's something I wouldn't want to be a part of anyway.

An eternal, never ending, god-making pyramid scheme with no creative ability and the required subjugation of all women to the status of breeding cow is just not how I would want to experience eternal life, if there is such a thing...

I didn't read through the whole article you posted but I do have to say that in paragraph 5, I don't understand why Kerry Shirts was upset that the video didn't touch on the text of the Book of Abraham and only focused on the papyri. Isn't that the main problem? Why would they talk about the text in the Book of Abraham if that's not the problem they're discussing?

Also, I want to warn you, there are some anti-Mormons out there but you will also see a lot of people who are simply stating facts and have nothing against the church. Just because a fact seems to put down the church does not mean they are anti-Mormon. It's just a fact.

I really hope you're research turns out well and you find out whatever you need to know. Whatever choice you make, I just hope it is the best one for you. Good luck :) feel free to visit any time.

It's a complete cop out. I had a really long email dialog with a former bishop and he pointed me to Nibley and his papers on the same topic, claiming Nibley was the Egyptian expert of our day and age. I read what Nibley had to say and it was nothing more than extreme intellectual acrobatics and talking around the main points.

For me, I started walking through all the issues one at a time and weighing in my mind the likelihood that each one was statistically possible in favor of the church. I wanted to believe as well. We all did. So I ended up taking the BOA and giving it a 5% chance of being translated by the gift of God. I think that was more than reasonable. Then I looked at the likelihood of horses existing in America pre Columbia, and again gave it a small % of being true, maybe we just didn't find the proof yet. Then I added all the other things together...steel swords, chariots, elephants, 2 millions deaths on the Hill Cumorah, DNA evidence of the native Americans, etc.... 5%, 2%, 3%...

The problem is that when you look at any one specific issue you can usually find some wiggle room to believe in the church. And this is true across the spectrum of issues that are out there. The apologist can always create enough mental gymnastics to leave a hole big enough to believe. The problem is the additive effect of all the percentages that I provided. If you have never taken a class in statistics I highly recommend it. When you start combining the likelihood of say two orthogonal issues that each have a 10% chance of being true, you end up with only a 1% chance of them both being true at the same time. 10% * 10% = 1%. When you start accumulating everything and multiplying out the odds of everything the likelihood that it is true becomes infinitesimally small. I finally reached a point where I realized... damn it! Joseph made it all up. Asshole!!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2013 01:29AM by sithlord.

You just gave me a lightbulb moment.

When I was in my early 40's I took a stats class. Not a common thing for someone of that age.

As I was reading up on Mormon history/doctrine I subconsciously had percentages running through my mind. It didn't really occur to me until now.

That's what brought mormonism tumbling down. The overall numbers of probability were so low. There was no way it could all be true with such low numbers on every level.

It didn't matter where I went. The PoGP, the BoM, the D&C, conference talks, nothing worked out. There was only one conclusion.

I hated that class. I had no idea it would b the undoing of my Mormonism. Life has some strange turns.

(and I don't feel like getting into it), I'll say, "mormonism has a long list of serial improbabilities that makes it impossible to be what it claims."

Or more simply, "for an organization that is allegedly run by God, it has way too many screw-ups."

Sithlord hits the nail on the head. There is an apologetic response for every single problematic issue with the church. Some of them are better than others, but each of them could possibly be true (even if it is a 1% chance). If you are going to be intellectually honest, you HAVE to look at Joseph Smith and the early church as a whole. When you do that, you will start to notice patterns, one of which is that we actually do have examples of items that Joseph claimed to translate (BOA facsimiles for example), and we now know that they simply do not say what Joseph said they did. Joseph was then either ignorant of his actual abilities or he was lying. Oh yeah, the other pattern that quickly arises is that Joseph Smith was a serial liar (there are SO many examples of this). If he continally lied to his wife, his closest associates and to the governement, remind me again why we should give him the benefit of the doubt?

In his interview with the Institute for Religious Research's documentary on the BOA, Robert Ritner addressed this point. I would recommend watching, even though there's a little Christian testimonial bit at the end which isn't germane to how we understand this. He asked what seems to be a key question along the lines of why would the BOA narrative pop-up among these documents? It has nothing to do with Hor's journey to the afterlife.

Another point is that the known documents clearly had some bearing on Joseph Smith's interpretation--especially with respect to the alleged sacrifice scene with the wicked priest Elkenah attempting to sacrifice Abraham. We should also keep in mind that Joseph Smith made specific identifications of the meaning of certain symbols that are included in the Pearl of Great Price and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar that were...er...incorrect.

This is just another silly thing like maybe horses mean tapirs etc. As sithlord rightly notes we certainly have to ask what are the odds that all the apologetic arguments are correct, because any one of these issues sinks the notion that Joseph Smith was God's prophet and the COJCLDS is the only true church with all the authority, truth, and greatness in the universe outside the Kolob zipcode.

You're just at the tip of the iceberg with the Book of Abraham. I wouldn't have considered a single issue to be a deal breaker, however, it would certainly be enough to motivate me to look at other historical issues as well. What I found shocking was that it wasn't one or two things, but virtually every single aspect of church history that we were taught to believe is fatally flawed.

So when arguing this point of the BOA, have them also consider the many other troubling aspects as well, which include but not limited to first vision, priesthood restoration, book of mormon, doctrinal and linguistic issues, temple ceremonies, Adam-God doctrine. Also the life of JS, scams, polyandry, death etc. It really starts to pile up quick.

More info on the BOA and responses to apologists:

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

Dear Conflicted:

It's okay to want to believe in something...

I am still trying to wean myself off the Santa myth.

Somehow, that guy still strikes a chord in me...


Oh well, I really like this quote by WC Fields:

"A man has to believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink."

>
>
> Oh well, I really like this quote by WC Fields:
>
> "A man has to believe in something, I believe
> I'll have another drink."

Thank you for posting that; I've never heard that quote before. Love it!

The Book of Abraham says that the worldwide population was reduced to eight people by a global flood only about 5,000 years ago.

In truth, humanity's CONTINUOUS occupation of: Africa for around 5 million years; Eurasia for 2 million years; Australia for 50,000 years, and the Americas for 20,000 years, are ubiquitously known.

The Book of Abraham says that Africa was repopulated after the flood by a rediscoverer named "Egyptus", who was a descendant of Cain through the wife of Ham, and that the curse or mark of Cain, strongly indicated to have been black skin, was thus preserved through the flood.

In truth, humanity is known to have migrated NORTH through Egypt from central Africa (long before Egyptus), not the other way around.
The Egyptian civilization itself is significantly older than the 5,000 years claimed in the BoA, but a continuous pre-historic population for many hundreds of thousands of years is evident there as well.
And, the black skinned curse, besides being transparently racist...is also a biological anachronism. All humans have the same set of melanin genes going back hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. A Norwegian has the same melanin genes as a Ghanan. In the Norwegian these genes are largely "knocked out". That is, most are no longer active. That's because in far northern latitudes black skin reduces UV absorbtion so much that vitamin D synthesis is deficient. White skin evolved in response, as these knock-out mutations were favorable in the far north. So, we know white skin came after black skin and in fact FROM black skin, not the other way around.

The time will come when you no longer depend on papyrii arguments regarding the BoA. As you realize the very content is transparent fiction, the papyrii no longer MATTERS.

The same thing happens with the Book of Mormon. After a while you become a reverse Vincenzo di Fransesca...as if finding a BoM in the trash and all publication information pages are missing. You know it's wrong just because of what it says. You don't NEED to know anything about Joseph Smith, that he was a con-man, a charlatan, a pedophile...or any of the ample evidence of fraud extrinsic to the book...because the book intrinsically proves itself a fraud.

That's actually where most people are on it. One look at mormonism is enough. It's transparently wrong...and the ones who don't see that are those who have a psychological blind spot there.
Yes, no offense intended, but YOU have a psychological blind spot there. You wouldn't be wondering if this blatantly wrong book MIGHT be true unless you do.
So, I suggest, unless it's sheerly FUN to you to study the papyrii arguments (then by all means do), that you try and identify your blind spot. What's making you hang on to this.

The Book of Abraham was probably the thing that sent me over the edge. It made me realize that the church's and apologists answers to problems were ridiculous.

Of course, that said, it is still miserably difficult. Even after that, I still continued for a long time to search for "answers" and second guessed myself. The church makes us not trust ourselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2013 10:48AM by almostthere.

Checkout these infographics, they will help you see the problem clearly:

Book of Abraham; Facsimiles 1-3 examined
http://www.mormoninfographics.com/search/label/Facsimile

Kinderhook Plates
http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/09/kinderhook-plates-hoax-or-history.html

nlocnil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Book of Abraham; Facsimiles 1-3 examined
> http://www.mormoninfographics.com/search/label/Fac
> simile

I think my favorite part is where Joseph decided the dark one was a slave.

Mormons claim that the BOA was written by Abraham 5,000 years ago. That would make it the oldest written artifact in history. Wouldn't you think, if it were that old, it would be in a museum somewhere for EVERYONE to see?? Instead, it is locked away in some vault in SLC. And the Mormons would be shouting from the top of every temple, "Look what we have!" It's been scientifcally proven that it is no where close to that age and there is not one Egyptologist that would stake their claim to it's pruported message.

Abraham is revered as the father of three of the world's largest religions. If the Book of Abraham was genuine, then Christians, Muslims, and Jews from all over the world would be clamoring over each other just to get a peak at it! It would be any museum's dream find and most highly prized artifact! Instead, it sat in some forgotten storage bin gathering dust in the NY Metro Museum until they just gave it away to the Mormons for free. And the Mormons don't even actively tell THEIR OWN MEMBERS that they possess it. They'd rather let their members believe the scrolls were all lost in the great Chicago fire!

http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Mormonism-Analysis-Assessment-Mormon/product-reviews/1578840074/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


He just recently is re-evaluating his position. Read his review. You need to see that apologists can change and be honest over time. Some however will never change.

As a nevermo with no particular interest in Mormonism, B of A was the first thing that caught my attention when I stumbled across it online while searching some egyptian thing or other. To me the facimiles in the Pearl of Great Price are just blatantly wrong and even hilarious. You don't have to have the whole papyrus to see that.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3?lang=eng
Fac 3 says 1. Abraham sitting on "Pharoah's" throne, but person 1 is obviously Osiris, the ruler of the realm of the dead.
2. Says its King Pharoah. Pharoah is not a proper name. Its a title and you wouldn't read it in hieroglyphics because it is derived from a greek term. We call them pharoahs. They didn't call themselves pharoahs. Another problem is that even if you don't realize that is a goddess, you gotta know King Pharoah is a lady. Queen pharoah wouldbe better.

4. Prince of Pharoah. Hm. Another cross dresser. It must run in the family.

6. Oimlah, a slave belonging to the prince. Most likely it would be Anubis a god of the dead. In any case it is quite funny that because of his color, he is picked out as a slave. If that does not point to an invention of a 19th century American, I don't know what does.

The other facsimiles are equally fanciful in very 19th century way. And all the apologists do is misdirect. Once on the old fair board I told Julie Ann that their only hope was to admit that scroll is irrelevant to the B of A and only acted as a catalyst. Julie Ann more or less admitted that and nobody contradicted her.