Conference tecrus::mormonism

In the early 1830's, the LDS  church  was  centered  around  Kirtland,
Ohio.   During that time, a man named Michael H.  Chandler was touring
the country with four Egyptian mummies, charging admission for  people
to see the exhibit.  In addition to the mummies, there were papyri.

Mr.  Chandler apparently had heard that Joseph Smith  could  translate
ancient  languages,  because  he  brought  his exhibit to Kirtland and
showed them to Joseph.  Members of the Church in Kirtland raised $2400
and purchased the mummies and papyri.

The following article, which appeared in  a  journal called "BYU
Today"  gives  a  summary  of  our  present  knowledge about Mr.
Chandler and his possession of the Egyptian artifacts.

"Will Sheds Light on Book of Abraham

"A professor has found the 1829 will of Antonio Lebolo, the  owner  of
Egyptian mummies which became the source of an LDS book of scripture.

"The will and accompanying papers provide important information  about
the  long-disputed  and confusing history of the origin of the Book of
Abraham, said Dr.  H.  Donl Peterson, professor of ancient scripture.

"Members of the LDS Church regard the book, translated  from  Egyptian
papyri  by  church  founder  Joseph Smith, as being written by the Old
Testament prophet Abraham.  The book is part of  the  Pearl  of  Great
Price, one of the four standard works of the Latter-day Saints.

"Last fall, Peterson traveled to Italy and Egypt to search for Antonio
Lebolo's will and other documents that might shed light on the Book of
Abraham's history.  The will, along  with  several  hundred  pages  of
supporting papers, was found in the State Archives in Turin by Adriano
Comollo, an Italian member of the Church.

"Through Dr.  Quido Donini of the Academy of Sciences  of  Turin,  the
papers  of  Bernardino  Drovetti were also made available to Peterson.
Drovetti was the consul general of France under Napoleon and  Lebolo's
supervisor  while  he  worked  in  Egypt.   Peterson  said information
gathered from the will and its accompanying documents, along with  the
Drovetti papers, will lead historians in new directions as they try to
trace the story.

"Traditionally, it had been thought  that  Antonio  Lebolo  (the  name
erroneously appears as 'Sebolo' in some LDS publications) was a French
traveler who acquired 11 mummies in 1831 while digging at  an  ancient
Egyptian  site.   He  willed four of them to a nephew named Michael H.
Chandler, the story goes.  Several commonly  quoted  accounts  portray
Lebolo  as  a  ruthless,  shadowy  character  who had no scruples, was
arrested several times and died penniless.  The new documents are more
complimentary.

"In 1833, Chandler sold the mummies to Joseph Smith, the Mormon leader
who  translated  the  accompanying  papyri into what now comprises the
Book of Abraham.

"The newly found documents, said  Peterson,  show  Lebolo  was  fairly
prosperous,  prominent,  and  a well respected man in Castellamonte at
his death.  He died on  Feb.   19,  1830,  not  in  1832  as  commonly
believed,  and  he  died  in  Castellamonte,  not  Trieste as commonly
thought.  He was Piedmontese but had  served  as  a  French  policeman
(Piedmont is a region in what is now northwest Italy).

"In the early 1820s, not early 1830s, Lebolo worked in Egypt  for  the
French  government,  which was excavating the tombs of Egyptian kings.
Lebolo acted as foreman over a crew of  200  to  300  men  digging  in
cemeteries  in  El  Guornah on the west bank of the Nile River (across
from the ancient city of Thebes).

"Lebolo was permitted to excavate privately at the nearby cemetery  of
less  wealthy Egyptians and it was there that he found the 11 mummies,
four of which Joseph Smith later bought.

"Peterson said his research shows Lebolo was highly respected  in  his
job  in  Egypt  and  hosted dignitaries there frequently.  Count Carlo
Vidua, a Piedmontese nobleman, extols him  in  one  document  for  his
'success'  and  'hospitality.'  Lebolo  also was well respected in his
home town of  Castellamonte  as  evidenced  by  documents  showing  he
frequently acted as a legal witness.

"Lebolo sold hundreds of mummies and artifacts that are now located in
such  renowned  places  as  the Louvre in Paris, the British Museum in
London, the Kunsthistorisches Museum in  Vienna  and  the  Vatican  in
Rome.

"The newly found papers show that the 11 mummies  eventually  sent  to
the  United  States  were  not listed in Lebolo's will but only in the
supporting documents.  None of the papers mentions  Michael  Chandler,
and   it   remains   unclear   how   he  became  acquainted  with  the
mummies--though it is known that Joseph Smith bought four from him for
$600 each.

"Peterson believes much remains to be done in documenting the story of
the  Book  of  Abraham, but he said the knowledge gained from the will
and the other documents raises new issues and leads researchers in new
directions.

"'Many questions remain,' Peterson said.  'What was so  special  about
the  11 mummies that Lebolo kept them until his death?  If the mummies
were that valuable (to bring a price of $600 each  in  1833  dollars),
why aren't they in his will?  Who was Michael H.  Chandler and how did
he acquire the mummies?' (BYU Today, June 1985, p.  15)

The Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the
books of LDS scriptures.  It was translated by Joseph Smith from Egyptian 
papyri which had been purchased by the Church in Nauvoo.

After the death of Joseph Smith, the Church moved west under the direction
of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles (Brigham Young was President of the Twelve).
Joseph's wife, Emma, didn't like Brigham Young and did not go to Utah but
stayed in Illinois; she retained custody of the papyri.  Until recently,
it was believed that the papyri had been destroyed in the Chicago fire,
but in the mid '60s one of the papyrus was discovered in New York City in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  The following information about that
discovery is taken from a church magazine which was published for the
general membership called "The Improvement Era".  The account is in the
words of Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, former director of the Middle East Center at
the University of Utah, who made the discovery.

"I was writing a book at the time, one that I had started while a professor
of world Christianity and eastern Christianity, and I went to the
Metropolitan Museum of Art looking for documents, papyri, pictures, and
illustrations to serve the book.  It must have been in the early spring of
1966.  I really forget the date.  My book was ready for the press, and I
was looking for supplementary material.

"While I was in one of the dim rooms where everything was brought to me,
something caught my eye, and I asked one of the assistants to take me behind
the bars into the storehouse of documents so that I could look some more.  
While there I found a file with these documents.  I at once recognized the
picture part of it.  When I saw this picture, I knew that it had appeared
in the Pearl of Great Price [the Pearl of Great Price contains three
facsimile of three papyrus that were used in the translation of the
Book of Abraham].  I knew the general format of the picture.  This kind of
picture one can find generally on other papyri, but this particular one has
special peculiarities.  For instance, the head had fallen off, and I could
see that the papyrus was stuck on paper, nineteenth century paper.  The
head was completed in pencil, apparently by Joseph Smith, who must have had
it when that part fell off.  He apparently drew the head in his own hand on
the supplementary paper.  Also, the hands of the mummy, raised as they are,
and the leg, raised as it is--usually the mummies lie straight forward--are
very peculiar.  This papyrus is Egyptian, true enough, but what it stands
for, I really don't know." ("The Improvement Era, January, 1968, pp. 13-14)

Dr. Atiya negotiated with the Museum, and the papyri were eventually given
to the LDS Church.  Included with the papyrus from the Book of Abraham were
ten other papyrus which appear to contain funerary texts from the "Book of
the Dead".

================================================================================
Note 105.56                   REPLIES TO NOTE 38.4                      56 of 71
CACHE::LEIGH                                        134 lines  29-JUL-1988 19:06
                        -< More on the Book of Abraham >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why doesn't the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the
text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?

By Michael D. Rhodes, researcher in ancient scriptures, BYU, Ensign, July,
1988, pp. 51-53

The papyri in question are a part of the collection of Egyptian mummies and
papyri that the Prophet Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler in 1835.
After the Prophet's death, the papyri were lost to the Church.  But in
1966, Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the
University of Utah, discovered some twenty-two separate papyri fragments in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, which were clearly part of
Joseph Smith's original collection.  The papyri were acquired by the Church,
and they are now located at Brigham Young University.

Perhaps the most famous of these papyri fragments is the one depicted in
the book of Abraham as facsimile number one.  It is said to represent
Abraham being sacrificed on an altar by the priest of Elkenah.  This picture
can be connected with several of the other papyri fragments that relate to the
text of an ancient Egyptian religious document known as the "Book of Sensen"
or "Book of Breathings."  Abraham refers to a picture in the text of the book
of Abraham (Abr. 1:12), and this picture is presumed to be the one we call
facsimile one; therefore, some people have concluded that this Book of
Breathings must be the text Joseph Smith used in his translation of the
book of Abraham.

However, there are some serious problems associated with this assumption.
First of all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of
Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60--much too late
for Abraham to have written it.  Of course, it could be a copy--or a copy
of a copy--of the original written by Abraham.  However, a second problem
arises when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation
of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same.  Enemies of the
Church have noted this and, without considering any other facts, have
assumed that this proves the Prophet's translation to be a hoax.

Actually, there are two possible explanations why the text of the recently
discovered papyri does not match the text in the Pearl of Great Price.

One explanation is that it may have been taken from a *different* portion of
the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith's possession.  In other words, we don't 
have all the papyri Joseph Smith had--and what we do have is obviously not
the text of the book of Abraham.  The Prophet described the papyrus he
used in translation in these words: "The record...found with the mummies,
is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or
paint, in perfect preservation." (History of the Church, 2:348.)  The Book
of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor
state of preservation.  It must have been in much the same condition in
Joseph Smith's day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other
totally unrelated papyri.  In fact, part of the outer border of facsimile
two in the Book of Abraham has some of these unrelated fragments inserted
in it.

Although the picture found as facsimile one in the book of Abraham stands
at the beginning of the Book of Breathings, this does not necessarily mean
that it belongs to the text.  The Egyptians often placed vignettes next to
texts that bore no relationship to them.  J. C. Goyon, in his study of the
Louvre papyrus number 3279 (a Book of Breathings text, incidentally), says
that the vignettes of religious papyri often have only a very distant
connection with the subject of the accompanying text.  ('Bibliotheque D'Etude',
Vol. XlII, "Le Papyrus du Louvre N. 3279," Cairo, 1966, p. 2)  Edouard
Naville, in his invaluable publication of the Theban version of the Book
of the Dead, also notes that the vignettes of many Book of the Dead papyri
have absolutely nothing to do with the text they accompany and are clearly
not meant to illustrate that text.  ('Das Aegyptische Totenbuch der XVIII,
bis XX, Dynastie, Einleitung', Berlin, 1886, p. 39)  Thus, the text that 
gave rise to the book of Abraham could have been located elsewhere on the
same papyrus or even on another.

But if the text were on the same papyri, what is a text written by--or
attributed to--Abraham doing with a bunch of pagan religious texts some
two thousand years after his time?  This is really not as unlikely as it may
seem.  The Egyptians had a mania for things of the past.  It is not 
unreasonable to suppose that Abraham's ancient record could have been
copied many times through the generations and treasured for its antiquity
centuries later.  Perhaps it was just such a multigeneration copy that finally
ended up with the mummies and documents that came into Michael Chandler's
possession, a text that we do not now have.

A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by
the word 'translation'.  While translating the Book of Mormon, he used the
Urim and Thummim rather than dictionaries and grammars of the language.
Translating with the Urim and Thummim is evidently a much different process
than using the tools of scholarly research.

Section seven of the Doctrine and Covenants provides us with a good example
of that process.  It is a revelation given to the Prophet through the Urim
and Thummim of a translation of a "record made on parchment by John [the
Revelator] and hidden up by himself." (See section heading to D&C 7.)  In
other words, the document being translated wasn't even in the Prophet's
possession; yet by means of the Urim and Thummim he was able to translate
it.

His translation of the Bible, parts of which are in the book of Moses
in the Pearl of Great Price, was also done without having the original text
before him.  Instead, while he was using the King James Version of the Bible,
the correct meaning or content was revealed to him, including extensive
revelations of both Enoch and Moses that are not found in the King James
Version.

We can envision a possible similar process taking place in Joseph Smith's
translation of the papyri he got from Michael Chandler.  Instead of making
a literal *translation*, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim
and Thummim as a means of receiving revelation.  Even though a copy of
Abraham's record possibly passed through the hands of many scribes and had
become editorially corrupted to the point where it may have had little
resemblance to the original, the Prophet--with the Urim and Thummim, or
simply through revelation--could have obtained the translation--or, as
Joseph Smith used the word, he could have received the *meaning*, or
*subject-matter content* of the original text, as he did in his translation
of the Bible.  This explanation would mean that Joseph Smith received the
text of our present book of Abraham the same way he received the translation
of the parchment of John the Revelator--he did not even need the actual text
in front of him.

In reality, the actual method Joseph Smith used is far less important than
the resulting book of scripture he produced.  But here the Prophet's critics
prefer to ignore the evidence of the text itself.  The book of Abraham should
be evaluated on the basis of what it claims to be: a record of Abraham.
A wealth of material on Abraham has come to light since the Prophet's text
was published, and the book of Abraham compares *astoundingly well with these
documents*.  (Hugh Nibley has discussed in detail the correlations between
the book of Abraham and the subsequently discovered texts on Abraham.  See
'Abraham in Egypt', 1981, and 'The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, An
Egyptian Endowment', 1975, both published by Deseret Book Company.)

In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of 
Abraham does not come by human means.  As with all aspects of the restored
gospel, "by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all
things." (Moro. 10:5)  I have studied the book of Abraham, and the truth
of it has been made known to me in a way I can't deny.  I know that anyone
who earnestly wants to know if the book of Abraham is true can also
receive this same witness and knowledge from God.

================================================================================
Note 105.45                   REPLIES TO NOTE 38.4                      45 of 71
USADEC::HANSEN "Be nice."                           229 lines   1-JUN-1988 17:56
                         -< Reply on Book of Abraham >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leza,

Part of your 38.4 dealt with the Book of Abraham. I don't think this has
been answered yet. 

>The Book of Abraham is a complete fraud.  

>The alleged translation by Smith known as the Book of Abraham, contained in 
>the POGP, was claimed to have been written in an Egyptian language by the 
>hand of Abraham when he was is Egypt.  Smith was so certain that he had 
>uncovered a document of importance that he wrote a volume on Egyptian 
>grammer (History of the Church 2:238) and in 1842 published his 
>translation.  He was deprived of the use of the Urim and Thummin but still 
>maintained that he was guided by the power of God.

>For years the hand written copy has been available by photo reprint, but 
>the original Egyptian papyrus was lost.  It was supposedly destroyed by the 
>great Chicago fire of 1871.  But in 1967 the papyrus was found and 
>presented to the Mormons by the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York.  
>Thinking that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have made a mistake, or lied, 
>the church allowed it to be photographed and published in Dialogue 
>Magazine.  Three different Egyptologists each claimed that Joseph Smith 
>came nowhere close to the meaning.  Their translation came to about 70 
>words, yet Joseph had used over four thousand words in his translation.

I hesitate to add any commentary of my own because I feel that all I have to
say may easily lead to contention, but I must say that I question your method
of research on this point. I trust you when you say you are sincere, but the
apparent lopsidedness of the material you choose to resource for your "report"
tends to weaken that trust.

That said, I give you Hugh Nibley (who you quoted extensively in 38.4 on this
same topic) to rebut your above assertion. I read it first in Nibley's book
"The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Eqyptian Endowment," and have
copied parts of it here from Studies in Scripture Vol. Two.

********************************************************************************
  Under a reproduction of the first column of the Joseph Smith manuscript of
  the Book of Breathings (usually designated as J.S. Pap. No. XI) appearing in
  the journal Dialogue, two eager investigators published the simple and damning
  statement: "Joseph Smith used this as the basis for the Book of Abraham."[1]
  Impressively direct and uncompromising, but also stimulating to the mind:
  Joseph Smith used it? *How* did he use it?  That is, or should be, the first
  question occurring to anyone whose wandering eye compares two damaged lines
  of hieratic writing (only eighteen characters in all) with the five teeming
  chapters of the Book of Abraham.  How would anyone go about employing those
  18 characters as the "basis" for that remarkable book?  What does "basis"
  mean anyhow?  Our authors have insisted loud and long that they know *exactly*
  how Joseph Smith did the trick,[2] and yet they have never had the good grace
  to tell the public how he did it--it remains a secret locked in their own
  bosoms.

  How easily the best of scholars may fall into such a trap appears from the
  title of Professor Klaus Baer's indispensable study labeled "A Translation of
  the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham."[3]  There would be nothing wrong
  with Dr. Baer's title if he had been good enough to explain to his readers why
  it is apparent to him that his text is the source of the Book of Abraham.  Yet
  aside from the heavily loaded title itself, he never mentions the issue that
  he has raised and that indeed was bound to become the main interest of his
  article.  Neither he nor his fellow polemicists have bothered to ask the most
  obvious and unavoidable questions their accusation raises.  How on earth could
  Joseph Smith or anybody else have derived a condensed and detailed account of
  50 pages from less than 20 hieratic signs?  How could such signs have suggest-
  ed a history, let alone contain it?  Why must a hard-working author derive his
  whole book from less than two-dozen signs, when thousands were at his dispos-
  al?
********************************************************************************

At this point, Dr. Nibley goes into some commonly asked questions and miscon-
ceptions about the papyri discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  For the
sake of brevity, I have omitted these questions and answers and will move on to
his discussion of the proof that the discovered papyri are not the source for
the Book of Abraham.

********************************************************************************
  ..the Prophet Joseph himself has supplied us with the most conclusive evidence
  that the manuscript today identified as the Book of Breathings, J.S. Papyri X
  and XI, was *not* in his opinion the source of the Book of Abraham.  For he
  has furnished a clear and specific description of the latter: "The record of
  Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on
  papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect
  preservation."[4]  Consider the three points in order.

  First, the Abraham document was beautifully written, and some of the surviving
  Joseph Smith papyri are indeed nicely and clearly written and accompanied by
  well-drawn vignettes.  Such are fragments II through VIII as classified in the
  Improvement Era reproductions published in 1968.[5]  If the Book of Breathings
  text was the only manuscript Joseph possessed, it is just possible that the
  thrill of having such a treasure could have carried him away to the extent of
  regarding it as a thing of beauty.  But he had a sizeable collection of hand-
  some Egyptian documents compared with which the hastily written and clumsily
  retouched characters of the Breathing text, in their crowded and uneven lines,
  can by no stretch of the imagination be called beautifully written.  Even the
  reserved Professor Wilson, while noting that some of the Joseph Smith papyri
  were rather prettily written, commented on the coarse appearance of Nos. X and
  XI, the Book of Breathings.[6]

  In the second place, the text which Joseph Smith relates, directly or inirect-
  ly, to Abraham contained the rubrics or brief notations in red ink common to
  Egyptian manuscripts.  He is plainly describing a real manuscript and a rather
  typical one; and since no one could read it, there is no reason why he should
  not have described it correctly.  Hence the fact that there is not the slight-
  est indication of rubrics in the J.S. Papyri X and XI--not so much as a speck
  of red ink, though such rubrics are common in the other Joseph Smith manu-
  scripts--is alone enough to disqualify it as a candidate for the Abraham
  source.  This is no mistake of preservation, moreover, for the longest of all
  Books of Breathings, one closely associated with this one, is also free of
  rubrics--apparently an intentional omission.[7]

  Third, "the record of Abraham and Joseph" was in a state of "perfect preserva-
  tion," while our Book of Breathings is the most badly damaged of all the papy-
  ri.  That it was already damaged in Joseph Smith's day is indicated by a num-
  ber of things.  For example, four large pieces are missing; they are not parts
  destroyed by the process of minute and gradual flaking which is still going
  on, and which leaves marks on the glue of the mounting-paper, but chunks con-
  taining sizeable portions of several lines each, such as could have broken off
  only before the document was mounted.  If they had broken off after the mount-
  ing, why were not the precious pieces returned to their proper place?  Instead
  of that, they were used to fill in gaps in another damaged papyrus, J.S. No.
  IV, three of them being glued in upside down!  Obviously they were not recog-
  nized as parts of our Breathing text.  Yet the paper on which the latter was
  mounted bears the handwriting of Joseph Smith, and the drawings, maps, and
  texts on the back of the mounting papers of all the papyri surviving clearly
  indicate that the work was done in Kirtland, where Wilford Woodruff reports
  in 1836 the papyri were on display in the temple as its greatest treasure. How
  could anyone fail to identify the four broken-off pieces unless they were al-
  ready broken off and jumbled up at the time the document was found?  The dam-
  age could have been done during Chandler's frantic search for "diamonds or
  valuable metal" in the New York Customs House.  A study of the mounted manu-
  scripts shows that there are places where bits of papyrus fibers have flaked
  off, leaving either filaments of fiber or the imprint of such in the glue,
  while there are other gaps in the manuscript where the backing paper has al-
  ways been blank, with no papyrus glued to it, showing that these parts of the
  text were missing at the time of the mounting.

  When in 1835 the brethren made attempts to "translate" the first two lines in
  terms of the Book of Abraham (if that is what they were doing, though it is
  exceedingly doubtful), they had the characters copied out for them by a single
  scribe in a bold and rather skillful hand, thus sparing wear and tear on the
  original; it is significant that when this scribe came to those places in the
  manuscript which are today a blank, he also left a blank in his copy which has
  been filled out by another hand with thin and awkward characters which are far
  too many for the spaces indicated and definitely the wrong characters.  This
  is another indication that the text was damaged from the first.  Indeed, un-
  like the other Joseph Smith papyri, this one contains clumsy ancient retouch-
  ings over places where the papyrus fiber flaked off centuries ago.  In short,
  if there is any of the papyri which is *not* in a state of "perfect preserva-
  tion," the Book of Breathings is it.

  Then too, it is significant that Joseph Smith in his description of the
  Abraham text failed to mention what would have been the most striking thing
  about it had it been the same as the Book of Breathings, namely, the full-page
  drawing immediately adjoining the text.  Since this is an illustration to the
  Book of Abraham, it has naturally been assumed that the text that follows the
  drawing could only be that of Abraham--even the brethren at Kirtland assumed
  that.  But that fails to take into account the common Egyptian practice of
  cross-matching vignettes with texts in general and with Book of Breathing
  texts in particular.  In an edition of the Book of Breathings Pap. Louvre N.
  3279, J.C. Goyon warned the student that the vignettes that accompany the text
  "have often only a very remote connection with the substance (le developpe-
  ment) of the writing."[8]  For example, Tableau ii of this Breathings text
  actually belongs "to the illustrations of the Chapters of the Gates of Hades,
  in the Book of the Dead," and it is only "as an exception" that "the title of
  the text [under Tableau iv] corresponds to the drawing that adorns it."[9]

  Following a well-known Egyptian practice (most conspicuous in th Amduat), our
  Book of Abraham twice refers its readers back to an illustration of some
  ritual object it is talking about.  When we read, "and that you may have a
  knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the com-
  mencement of this record" (Abr. 1:12), or, "That you may have an understanding
  of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the beginning" (Abr.
  1:14), the language clearly implies that the reader does not have the picture
  before him, but must be referred back to "the commencement of this record," to
  "the figures at the beginning."  The Abraham text may have belonged on the
  same roll as the Book of Breathings and Facsimile No. 1, or have been placed
  differently in the original document by Abraham, but if so, it must be sought
  in the section that has obviously been cut off from the Book of Breathings.

  For a demonstration of the strange practice of putting the isllustrations of
  one story with the test of another, we need look no further than the Joseph
  Smith Book of Breathings itself, where the scene depicted so vividly in the
  Facsimile is nowhere mentioned in the text that immediately follows.  Only by
  matching up the fibers of the writing and the drawing is it possible to show
  that the two presentations, which at first glance have nothing to do with each
  other, were actually side by side on the same strip of papyrus.

  Since Joseph Smith actually possessed quite a number of perfectly preserved,
  beautifully written Egyptian manuscripts adorned with rubrics, there is no
  reason to doubt that he was describing such a document as the source of "the
  record of Abraham and Joseph."  And there can be no doubt whatever that the
  manuscript he was describing was and is an entirely different one from the
  badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics, which
  is today identified as the Book of Breathings.  One cannot insist too strongly
  on this point, since it is precisely the endlessly repeated claim that the
  Book of Breathings has been "identified as the very source of the Book of
  Abraham" on which the critics of Joseph Smith have rested their whole case,
  oblivious to the howling absurdity of insisting that the book was produced in
  a manner in which, as they tirelessly demonstrated, no book could possibly be
  produced, ever!
********************************************************************************
Notes

1. Grant S. Heward and Jerald Tanner, "The source of the Book of Abraham
	Identified," Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968):93; Illust. no. 1.

2. Discussed by Hugh Nibley in "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,"
	BYU Studies 11.4 (Summer 1971):350-54.

3. Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent
	Source of the Book of Abraham," Dialogue 3.3 (Autumn 1968):109-34.

4. HC 2:348.

5. Improvement Era, February 1968, pp. 40a-40g.

6. John A. Wilson, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and
	Interpretations, A Summary Report," Dialogue 3.3 (Autumn 1968):68.

7. Jean-Claude Goyon, "Le papyrus du louvre n. 3279," Bibliotheque detude 42
 	(Cairo: L'institut Francais d'archeologie orientale, 1966),p.3.

8. Goyon, pp. 2, 6.

9. Ibid., pp. 3, 7.


Smiles,

Dave H.

A man named Dee Jay Nelson claimed to be an Egyptologist.  He claimed he
was commissioned by the LDS Church to translate the Egyptian papyri, and
that when he discovered the papyri were from the Book of the Dead, the
Church suppressed his translation.

Research into Dee Jay Nelson's background has shown he is a fraud.  This
research is discussed in detail in notes 105.64 through 105.70.

================================================================================
Note 105.71                   REPLIES TO NOTE 38.4                      71 of 71
CACHE::LEIGH                                        254 lines  31-OCT-1988 08:48
                     -< The Egyptian grammar and alphabet >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re 38.4

>Smith was so certain that he had 
>uncovered a document of importance that he wrote a volume on Egyptian 
>grammer (History of the Church 2:238) 

Hugh Nibley has discussed the Egyptian grammar.  The following is from
"Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham", by Hugh Nibley, as reprinted
in "They lie in wait to deceive", Vol. 1, pp. 236-245.  Because of its
length, I am only giving parts of the article.

****************************

1) Joseph Smith never produced an Alphabet or Grammar of the Egyptian language.
What was repeatedly and falsely put forth as "Joseph Smith's Original Alphabet
and Grammar" was an enterprise in which a number of men engaged.  The leader
of this project was W. W. Phelps, and by far the greatest part of the writing
is in his hand.  Phelps had an ambitious plan for methodically working out
an Egyptian grammar and Alphabet, but it quickly became apparent that the
approach was not a fruitful one, and it was dropped for good.

But wasn't Smith in on it?

He was indeed, sharing his ideas with the others, for both works (the Egyptian
Grammar and the Alphabet) were purely speculative and exploratory.

How do you know that?

Because, of the six men participating, each makes his own contribution; no
two of their interpretations are identical.  The whole thing is quite fluid.
The men are admittedly exploring and interpreting.  Most importantly, the
project never got off the ground.  The most ambitious version of the grammar,
that of Phelps, ground to a halt after a single page, and his equally ambitious
alphabet was given up after a page and a half, before the second letter was
completed.

Then what is behind it?

Obviously they were doing what they explicitly stated they were doing, i.e.,
trying to produce an Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian language--nothing
was said about a project of translating the Book of Abraham.  Their interest
in such an enterprise was perfectly legitimate and understandable.  They had
priceless Egyptian manuscripts in their possession and were irresistibly drawn
to search for clues.  The decipherment of Egyptian was a problem which excited
many at the time, and the School of the Prophets had a legitimate and honest
interest in the study of Biblical and related languages.  At the time Phelps
made independent attempts at translating parts of the Bible, Oliver Cowdery,
one of the group, had eagerly sought some years before to translate "the
engravings of old records which are ancient" (D&C 8:1).  The instructions given
Cowdery in the matter are extremely important: he is not to expect the power to
translate to come to him as a gift, but must first "study it out in your mind,"
and only "then you must ask me if it be right" with no guarantee of acceptance
(D&C 9:7).  This is the process we see going on in the Egyptian exercises.

The critics say that the "Grammar" proves that Joseph Smith did not know
Egyptian.

Nobody ever said he did.  His translations were "given to him", as the
expression went, by direct revelation [not implying it was given to him word
for word, but rather given to him as meanings].  If he did know it, why would
he be sweating over a grammar and alphabet?

Then Joseph Smith did write an Egyptian Grammar?

He did not.  He would very much have liked to as the subject intrigued him
to the end of his life when he suggested the possibility of such an undertaking
in the future.

But why should he have been so interested in Alphabets and Grammars if not to
help him translate?

This brings us to our second point which is that:

2) The Alphabet and Grammar were not used in any translation.  It is important
to note that the Prophet had a real interest in ancient languages and studied
them the hard way; but only after he had completed all his inspired
translations.  Thus, he studied Hebrew and German along with the brethren
and looked about for a teacher of Greek, but that lively interest in languages
blossomed in Kirtland only after he had finished his new translation of the
Bible, translating the Book of Abraham at the same time.  Greek and Hebrew
dictionaries and grammars were available for their studies, but what about
Egyptian?  They would have to do what students of exotic languages have always
done, what the scholars of the 16th century did when confronted by strange
Greek, Syriac, or Coptic texts--they would have to make their own dictionaries
and grammars.  Joseph Smith's translation of the Old Testament was one thing;
his Hebrew and German lessons long after were something else entirely.
Likewise, his translation of the Book of Abraham was one thing; while his
discussions and speculations and intellectual flights with the brethren in
Kirtland were again something else.

You mean they were interested only in making a grammar?  Wouldn't they need it
for translating the Book of Abraham?

That suggestion is the wildest of all in view of the evidence.  Just look at
those documents [the grammar and alphabet]; could anyone possibly use them for
anything?  Just try it.  The opposition have loudly proclaimed that the
"Grammar" and "Alphabet" shows exactly how Joseph Smith did his translation, the
precise modus operandi he followed, as they put it.  Well, let someone show us
how the modus operandi works.  To date no one has tried to turn the key--
understandably, since it won't fit into any lock.  Aside from the wild nature
of the stuff we have seen, there isn't nearly enough "Alphabet" or "Grammar"
to be of use to anyone; they didn't really get started on them before they gave
them up.  But aside from that, the characters that meet us in the "Alphabet"
and "Grammar" never turn up in the attempts at fitting Egyptian characters to
the Book of Abraham.  The 125 proper names and numerals in the Alphabet and
Grammar nowhere appear in Abraham's book.  Even if the Alphabet and Grammar
could have been used as an aid to translation, it was not so used.

This brings up the matter of those other documents that do look very much
like an attempt at translation; that is, where Egyptian characters appear in
a margin on the left side of the page while the rest of the page is filled with
writing from the Book of Abraham.

At first glance it looks as if it may have been a translation, but a second
glance wipes out even the remotest possibility of such a thing, as the critics
themselves have been at pains to point out.  A certain Mr. Heward went to the
trouble of passing out handbills on Temple Square at a General Conference,
asking the Mormons to accept as sacred truth from him, that the juxtaposition
of Egyptian characters and English text proves that the one could not possibly
by any stretch of the imagination be a translation of the other.  The
disproportion between the characters is staggering: "How could one dot tell the
whole story of Little Red Ridinghood in all its harrowing details?", Mr. Heward
asked.  There is only one answer.  Everything shows that this was not a
translation and was not viewed as such.

Even when the two texts are found side by side?

If the juxtaposition made sense translation-wise, then it might be used as
evidence that this was intended as a translation.  As it is, the juxtaposition
effectively refutes the thesis.  First, there is the absurd disproportion 
between, for example, three short strokes of a scribe's brush and a whole
paragraph of English text including parenthetical remarks and at least a dozen
proper names--all in three strokes and a dot!  Along with that, there is the
meaningless spacing of the characters opposite the English Abraham text: 
characters where none should be, intruding in the middle of a phrase or word;
no characters where such are indispensable, as at the beginning of a new
paragraph or episode; characters placed squarely between lines so that no one
can tell which line they are supposed to go with.  Then there is the sloppy and
indifferent drawing of the characters; though each tiny detail is supposed to
contain whole sentences of meaning, each of the researches draws his own
symbols, putting in or leaving out lines and dots with easy abandon.

All of this is understandable only if the characters are treated as expendable,
consulted in the process of trying out various possible clues to help in the
composing of an Egyptian grammar, and abandoning them when they fail to work.
We know they were considered expendable because they were dispensed with
four-fifths of the time.  Of the three "translation" texts, one of them has no
Egyptian characters whatever, though like them it is labeled "Translation of
some ancient records," etc., as is the present-day Book of Abraham, showing
that the word "translation" does not refer to those particular characters.
Even in the two manuscripts in which they appear, those of Phelps and Parrish,
the Egyptian characters put in an appearance only part of the time: both
these exercises dispense with them and preempt their margins when they become
a nuisance.  In all, there are only 18 Egyptian words employed in the
"translation", all taken from the first two lines of the text of 45 lines.

We do not have here the process of deriving one text from another, but simply
that of placing two completed texts side by side for comparison.

Completed?

Certainly.  The Egyptian characters are copied from a Book of Breathing text,
and the Abraham passages from a completed text of the Book of Abraham, as is
perfectly apparent from the state of the manuscripts.  The Abraham sections
are found in three manuscripts and are the same in all three, copied out each
time in a fair hand without erasures, corrections, substitutions or alterations,
without the slightest indication of the laborious business of translation--there
is nothing here but the simple mechanical task of neatly copying out a finished
text.  The margins should also be noted: they are drawn in before either text
was written down.  The English was easily accommodated to them, but the Egyptian
was not.  If any attempted translation was going on, the English side of the
ledger would have been messy indeed instead of a model of tidiness.  There is
one notable exception to the obvious lack of any rational attempt to match up
the English and the Egyptian.

What is that?

Phelps made a bold and ambitious start with his copy: beginning with the top
line he starts out by placing numbers beside the Egyptian characters, matching
each one by the same number marking an English word opposite.  This looks like
business--Phelps is determined on a systematic study even as he was working
away at the Alphabet and Grammar.  And that is what makes this so significant,
for Phelps never got any further than the number three--after the first three
characters he gives up, while the neat four columns of classification into
which he has divided the page are abandoned at the same time--the whole thing
collapses before our eyes before it has even gotten properly started.  It was
a nice try, but Phelps could see that it was getting nowhere.

Can we be sure of that?

We can.  If the men of Kirtland knew they had a real thing going in this
operation, they would have stuck with it; if they were getting anywhere at all
with their exciting project, they would have carried on for more than a mere
two pages of Alphabet and Grammar and ventured beyond barely two lines of
Egyptian characters from a text containing 45 lines.  If their studies were 
making progress, they would have continued them; and if they had hit upon
something valid, they would have announced it.  As it is, nothing is more
impressive than the promptness and finality with which the Alphabet, Grammar,
and "translation" projects were dropped the moment it became apparent that they
were up a blind alley.  The state of the manuscripts makes that perfectly
clear.  Equally significant, however, is the care that was taken to avoid
misleading anyone, raising false hopes, or giving false impressions.  The
whole business was strictly confidential in nature; these speculations and
probings never got out of a closed academic circle.  Again, it is the
opposition who make this clearest when they play up their own role in bringing
to light "hidden documents," as they put it, writings "suppressed for 130
years."  Well, they were suppressed and forgotten, for they were never
publicized or circulated.  No claims were ever given for them.  It was not
the Prophet's habit to suppress anything he felt was true and relevant to
the Gospel.  On the contrary, his calling was to make everything known.  He
translated and published the Book of Mormon to the world in the face of
universal opposition and contempt, and he told everyone just how he got it
and how he translated it.  He was not one to hold anything back.  If the 
Kirtland Papers were thought of as inspired or even reasonably helpful they
would have been expanded, used, and their worth announced to the world.  The
strictly confidential nature of the work tells us just what kind of an
exercise it was--never circulated, never given out to the members of the
church or the general public--no one was corrupted by it.  Now, if the
brethren had continued after they saw they were going nowhere, then we might
charge them with deceiving themselves if not others.  But they did not.  They
were pursuing the same trial-and-error course that scholars and scientists must
needs follow.  And the results were not more fantastic than the speculations
of some eminent scholars of the world in their early efforts to decipher
Egyptian.  Nay, they are not a whit more extravagant and bizarre than many
explanations, translations, and interpretations of the Facsimiles brought forth
by students inside the church and outside of it to this very day, and that in
an environment of graduate study and large university libraries such as the men
of Joseph Smith's day never dreamed of.

The behavior of the participants in the philological exercises of Kirtland
after the project was abandoned is also not without significance.  At the very
time the work on the Alphabet and Grammar and Translation came to a halt, all
but one of the five men engaged in it with Joseph Smith turned against the
prophet, denounced him in the strongest germs and were cut off from the church.
Why?  Mostly because they were jealous of him; especially Phelps who was far
better educated than the Prophet, had studied Classical languages and at that
time tried his own hand at translation.  All but one of these men returned to
the church and begged the prophet's forgiveness, which he freely granted.  But
though these temporary renegades told every manner of lie to make the prophet
seem ridiculous and deluded in the eyes of the world, they never mentioned his
indiscretions in the matter of the Book of Abraham....

Then what is the connection between the Book of Abraham and the Book of
Breathings, from which all are agreed it cannot possibly have been derived?

It was an exploratory and experimental exercise.  The men of Kirtland, when
they wanted to know more about Egyptian, did what any scientist or scholar will
do to solve a difficult problem; that is, he must try any and every approach
to the problem.  If he is completely in the dark, every possibility and
suggestion, no matter how absurd it may appear, must be considered.  You cannot
make a grammar or alphabet of any language if you don't have at least one
example of a translation--without a Rosetta Stone you will get nowhere.  And
the Book of Abraham offered the brethren the only examplar of a sure translation
from the Egyptian.  they compared it with various texts, trying it on for size.

RE:< Note 282.5 by CACHE::LEIGH "Do not procrastinate repentance" >

        Allen,
        
>A man named Dee Jay Nelson claimed to be an Egyptologist.  He claimed he
>was commissioned by the LDS Church to translate the Egyptian papyri, and
>that when he discovered the papyri were from the Book of the Dead, the
>Church suppressed his translation.
>
>Research into Dee Jay Nelson's background has shown he is a fraud.  This
>research is discussed in detail in notes 105.64 through 105.70.


        With all  due  respect, I am tired of seeing character assasination
        used to undermine the truth.    Dr.    Nelson's reputation is above
        reproach, and he WAS commissioned by  the LDS Church to investigate
        the translation.   Why  don't  you  unleash  the  same  standard of
        character scrutiny against Joseph Smith  and  see  how he stands up
        under it?
        
        Furthermore, I don't care how much verbage  is used to explain this
        topic,  the  FACTS  are  that  Smith's own handwritten  translation
        exists with the individual Egyptian characters next to the  text he
        claimed was translated.  (From my  understanding,  this  manuscript
        belongs to the LDS Church, but I'm sure it is not well publicized.)
        The characters match PERFECTLY the Book of Breathings,  and yet the
        text is the Book of Abraham.  There is absolutely  no  doubt  as to
        how  and where his translation came from.  I'm sorry, but the  fact
        of the matter is that the Book of Abraham is a FRAUD!
        
        - Ed

>        With all  due  respect, I am tired of seeing character assasination
>        used to undermine the truth.    Dr.    Nelson's reputation is above
>        reproach, and he WAS commissioned by  the LDS Church to investigate
>        the translation.

Well, Ed, I discussed Nelson's reputation in great detail in notes 105.64
through 105.70, and I believe that evidence shows he was not commissioned
by the LDS Church and that he is a fraud.  I would hope that you would show
us the courtesy of refuting those replies to note 105 instead of just
repeating an emotional claim without giving evidence to support your claim.
        
>        Furthermore, I don't care how much verbage  is used to explain this
>        topic,  the  FACTS  are  that  Smith's own handwritten  translation
>        exists with the individual Egyptian characters next to the  text he
>        claimed was translated.  (From my  understanding,  this  manuscript
>        belongs to the LDS Church, but I'm sure it is not well publicized.)
>        The characters match PERFECTLY the Book of Breathings,  and yet the
>        text is the Book of Abraham.  There is absolutely  no  doubt  as to
>        how  and where his translation came from.  I'm sorry, but the  fact
>        of the matter is that the Book of Abraham is a FRAUD!
        
Reply .6 to this note discusses in great detail the alignment of characters
from the Book of Breathings with text from the Book of Abraham.  I would
hope, Ed, that you would refute reply .6 with some rational information
instead of just repeating the claim from anti-Mormons that the text was
translated from those characters.  Nibley gave his reasons for believing the
characters were not used in an attempt to translate the Book of Abraham.
Ed, what are your reasons for believing they were?

Allen

    After reading 105.64 through 105.70, I guess the terms FACT and FRAUD
    are relative in that it all depends on who is using them against whom.
    I guess I am a fraud also, and that the God I worship is a fraud, as
    that is how come I believe in the Pearl of Great Price along with the
    rest of the LDS scriptures.  It then makes no difference what kind of
    "evidence" man can come up with.

RE:< Note 282.8 by CACHE::LEIGH "Do not procrastinate repentance" >

        Allen,
        
>Well, Ed, I discussed Nelson's reputation in great detail in notes 105.64
>through 105.70, and I believe that evidence shows he was not commissioned
>by the LDS Church and that he is a fraud.  I would hope that you would show
>us the courtesy of refuting those replies to note 105 instead of just
>repeating an emotional claim without giving evidence to support your claim.

        Unfortunately, I  am at a bit of disadvantage here because the book
        which had most  of my sources (THE MORMON PAPERS) has been borrowed
        and lost.  However,  there  is  substantial  evidence given in that
        book in the way of actual photocopies of letters between Nelson and
        the LDS Church to substantiate that  he  was asked to translate the
        book and that the LDS church considered him well qualiified for the
        job.  It is interesting that such a  change  of  position  occurred
        once he denounced the translation and left the church!        
        
>Reply .6 to this note discusses in great detail the alignment of characters
>from the Book of Breathings with text from the Book of Abraham.  I would
>hope, Ed, that you would refute reply .6 with some rational information
>instead of just repeating the claim from anti-Mormons that the text was
>translated from those characters.  Nibley gave his reasons for believing the
>characters were not used in an attempt to translate the Book of Abraham.
>Ed, what are your reasons for believing they were?

        Once  again,  from  the same book is a photocopy  of  a  manuscript
        documented to be the hand of Joseph Smith (and accepted  by the LDS
        church) in  which  the  individual  characters  from  the  disputed
        papyri are shown  with  the  actual text of the BoA.  Thus there is
        no doubt as to which relic the text was translated from.  There are
        litterally hundreds of English words  used to represent the meaning
        of each Egyptian character.  
        
        I would challenge:  Let's get  the  issue  off  Dr.    Nelson for a
        second.   Is there a single solitary  non-Mormon  Eqyptologist  (or
        Mormon for that matter!) which can find ANY  extant  relic  text to
        render the equivalent text of the BoA?  It  would  seem  to me that
        for  the BoA to be finally substantiated that it would  be  in  the
        best    interest   of  the  LDS  church  to  have  the  translation
        substantiated by  a non-Mormon authority.  It would seem to me that
        if such were possible that it would have been done and shouted from
        the highest rooftop.   Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive that
        such has not happened, and  I  would dare to conjecture that it can
        NEVER happen.  This was very  much the same reasoning that for many
        years led Mormons to claim that the  Smithsonian  Institution  used
        the  BoM  for  archiologically  guidance.  This however  ultimately
        failed  because  the  Smithsonian finally published a disclaimer to
        the contrary.  Ultimately the BoA will suffer the same fate and the
        LDS  church  will  only  be  able  to cover its tracks and  rewrite
        history  for  so long until the truth is plain to all, except those
        looking  from within.    Such  is  the  history  of  all  who  have
        undertaken to rewrite history, such as the Soviet Union
        
        - Ed
        

See note 61.7 and for a reference to The Mormon Papers.  I have obtained and
studied this book.  I thought I posted a point-by-point review of it somewhere,
but I can't find it.  Basically, my opinion is that the book is poorly 
researched and presented.  I would be hesistant to use it as a reference in any
argument because it simply is not a good scholastic work, even though it is 
based on work Mr. Ropp submitted in thesis.  From what I had heard about the 
book, I had expected it to be a test of faith.  After reading it, and 
especially after comparing with several of Nibley's works, I found it not 
nearly the test I had expected.

We need to turn down the enmity level here.  Don't know about you, but I 
usually figure the first person to stoop to personal attacks has lost the
argument.  The first to reciprocate in kind forces a draw.

Steve

Re .10

>        Once  again,  from  the same book is a photocopy  of  a  manuscript
>        documented to be the hand of Joseph Smith (and accepted  by the LDS
>        church) in  which  the  individual  characters  from  the  disputed
>        papyri are shown  with  the  actual text of the BoA.  Thus there is
>        no doubt as to which relic the text was translated from.  There are
>        litterally hundreds of English words  used to represent the meaning
>        of each Egyptian character.  
        
We both agree that the manuscript having characters from the Book of
Breathings in one column and text from the Book of Abraham in another
column exists.  The point in question is whether the characters from the
Book of Breathings were used in an attempt to translate the Book of
Abraham.

In my reply in .6, I gave Hugh Nibley's reasons for believing that the
characters were not used in an attempt at translation.  In your comment
given above, you refer to the manuscript and then conclude that the
characters were used in an attempt at translation of the Book of
Abraham, but you didn't explain why you believe that and why you disagree
with Nibley's reasons.  I don't understand your conclusion, Ed, and I would
like to hear your reasons for those two points.

Allen

RE:< Note 282.15 by CACHE::LEIGH "Do not procrastinate repentance" >
        
>We both agree that the manuscript having characters from the Book of
>Breathings in one column and text from the Book of Abraham in another
>column exists.  The point in question is whether the characters from the
>Book of Breathings were used in an attempt to translate the Book of
>Abraham.

        Yes, facts are rather hard to disagree with.
        
>In my reply in .6, I gave Hugh Nibley's reasons for believing that the
>characters were not used in an attempt at translation.  In your comment
>given above, you refer to the manuscript and then conclude that the
>characters were used in an attempt at translation of the Book of
>Abraham, but you didn't explain why you believe that and why you disagree
>with Nibley's reasons.  I don't understand your conclusion, Ed, and I would
>like to hear your reasons for those two points.

        Because, as  the  heading  of  this  Notes conference is so fond of
        pointing out,  I use my intellegence.  ;^)
        
        - Ed

Ed,

My last note was hidden because it could be interpreted as being an attack.
That was not my intent, so I've deleted it and am trying another approach.  

I think that you may not be aware that you are not communicating well with us.
I sense that there are some noters who already discount what you have to say 
because of this difficulty.  That potentially deprives us of your insight.  We 
do want to communicate, but it requires listening and reasoning on both sides.
Reminds me a little of Isaiah 1:18-20.  If you (or any other noters, for that 
manner) truly do have a Christian love for us and we for you, then let's show 
it by attempting to understand each other from each other's viewpoints.  We
are indicating to you that we are unable to communicate.  Would it be helpful
for us to indicate how we feel that you might be better able to communicate
with us?

Steve

    I am glad you put that point in, Steve, about other noters not
    listening any more.  I am one of those.  I am so weary of hackneyed,
    tiresome litanies from detractors about fraud, a different God and
    Christ, that I just tune the detractors all out as having too little
    information and too much misplaced zeal.  In another topic I have
    recently noticed another  new 'sniper' using these same litanies.  
    
    I can understand why the General Authorities usually do not spend much
    time on responses to people who do not want to hear.  It simply is a
    waste of time.  In the preface to Nibley's book, An Approach to the
    Book of Mormon, from which I have noted many evidences for the
    truthfulness of the B of M,  Nibley says that no matter how much evidence
    you present, some people have made up their minds and will never
    entertain new information.  I wonder if such a person is considered
    being hard hearted?
    
    So, count me as one of those who read, but just cannot be bothered to
    respond when reasonable responses have been    stated and restated 
    so many times and yet the same inflamatory over-zealous diatribe
    lingers on from persons using questionable resource materials.
    
    
    As prophesied, the Church of Jesus Christ IS the stone cut out from the
    mountain; it is rolling forth and filling the earth, and It is
    unstoppable.
    
    As for me, give me some people who are really searching for truth and
    have open minds to receive such.  Until then, thanks for the advice,
    Steve.  I am still reading, but selecting my responses more carefully.
    
    Paul
                                       
    
    
    
    
    times before

I did a research paper on the Book of Abraham and its origins while at school.
I read both "anti" books from detractors of the truth as well as "supporting"
books and articles. (aside: the BYU library in its section on religion had
several books and pamphlets against the BoA as well as "supporting" books).

Several people in this conference have made claims that the BoA is a fraud
and mention different manuscripts as "evidence".  Unfortunately, when one
provides evidence, one must make a point and use the evidence to support
that point by pointing out *how* the evidence supports the point, and by
*backing up the evidence* with well thought out arguments.  This has not
been done by the anti claims here.  We have gotten the point and a piece of
evidence, but little on how the evidence supports the point and *no* support
of the evidence.

The Church makes no claim that the papyri were the ones used in the translation
of the BoA.  The Church does not deny that the papyri fragments we have now
are from the Book of Breathings and are not trying to translate them any 
differently.

What supporters of the Book of Abraham do claim however is that the BoA was
"translated" with the use/help of some papyri that Joseph Smith had.  There
has been ample explanation either here or in books such as from Nibley, wherein
is researched the origin of various manuscripts, studies of related activities
from JS time, timelines of events gleaned from sources dating to those times,
accounts by witnesses describing the papyri the church/JS had, JS' and others' 
notes, etc., from which several quite valid explanations have come forth.  The
"anti" crowd on the other hand take a few pieces of evidence, make claims
about that evidence without supporting evidence for these claims, and try to
come to a conclusion based on only a piece of the complete picture.  I am
reminded of the story of the blind men and the elephant, which you probably
have all heard, but which I repeat:  three blind men were led to an elephant,
and each were allowed to feel a certain part of the elephant.  On felt a
tusk, one felt the trunck, and one felt a leg.  They were then each asked,
what it was that they had come into contact with.  The man who had felt the
leg said he had come into contact with a tree, the one with the tusk a spear, 
and the last with the trunk a snake.  The point is, the "anti" crowd sees
a party of the BoA story and comes to a false conclusion about the BoA because
they are too blind to look at a more complete picture.  They focus only on
a few manuscripts that are taken out of context and try to make a point
with them.

I have more of an analytical, methodical mind and the level of research
done by the "antis" is not very professional, in terms of looking at supporting
evidence for the main evidence.

This is not at all important however, as the real test is to gain a testimony
of the Gospel, Prophets, Joseph Smith, BoM, and continuing revelation.  Having
this, the, God through the Holy Ghost opens ones eyes to deeper "mysteries".
We have to have milk before meat, as the Bible points out.  We learn line upon
line, precept on precept.  We cannot see the whole picture of the Gospel and
God's plan at once.  I testify that the BoA and the PoGP is Holy Scripture,
given through the Holy Ghost by God to Joseph Smith, the same as it was
given to Abraham and Moses earlier.  It is not important whether "translate"
means like we do technical writings from German to English or whether it means
to bring forth a message based on another message and given through revelation.
I have read the BoA and prayed about it and have of a surety spiritual knowledge
of its truthfulness.  This knowledge does not come from any book, pro or con,
but from God through the Holy Spirit.  My research into the matter on a 
scholastic and intellectual level has only served to strengthen this testimony.
In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Chad Leigh

Nibley discusses the Book of Abraham in several of his books.  (Folks, I could
swear I worked up a report on the Mormon Papers, but I can't find it anywhere.)
Anyway, I studied what Nibley had to say versus what I found in the Mormon
Papers.  Nibley explains the part that the Book of Breathings plays in the
Book of Abraham.  Among other things, he points out that there are many
different versions of the drawings from the Book of Breathings.  Also, the
interpretation of the drawings varies according to context.  It was practice
to use these drawings as illustrations for many different types of records,
not just one.  Ropp makes several erroneous assumptions because of his ignorance
regarding the use of these drawings.  Nibley, on the other hand, uses lots of
references to illustrate these points of which Ropp was apparently unaware.

Nibley only shows that the use of the drawings in the Book of Abraham is 
consistent with how the drawings were used elsewhere.  Beyond this, he
also points out that the Book of Abraham is a revelation, not a word for word
translation.  Thus, it reflects the meanings that Abraham intended when he
wrote the original record.  This is not unlike the process involved in 
translating the BofM.  If folks have interest, I can hunt up the references.  
At the time that I studied the Mormon Papers, I borrowed the references from a 
friend.

Steve

    	Found some interesting information regarding the the Book of Abraham
        in a book written prior to the finding of the papyri in 1967.  The
        following is from the book "The Mormon Establishment" which has
        a copyright date of 1966.
    
        "The Prophet had successfully producte the BOM without ever
    allowing any of the Golden Plates to be carefully examined, or any
    inscriptions coped from them to fall into hands of persons qualified to 
    translate hieroglyphics.
    
         But in the Pearl of Great Price the church has reproduced some
    copies of the hieroglyphics which the Prophet Joseph said he translated.
    The reproductions are accompanied with detailed statements of what the
    Prophet said the hieroglyhics shows.  It was almost as if the invitation
    were being extended to scholars to denounce the work.  This they did
    with gusto."
    
    The book on pages 234-237 gives some examples from the book
    published by F.S. Spalding in 1912 with the translation by Joseph Smith.
    
    

Hi Roger,

You've brought up an interesting part of the history of the Book of Abraham.

I first read Reverend Spalding's book while I was in college; I came across
it one day while browsing through the library at the LDS Institute of Religion
at Utah State University.

For those who are not familiar with Spalding's book, let me give a brief
review of it--I'm going from memory, so please feel free to correct me if I
recall details incorrectly.

F. S. Spalding was a Protestant religious leader in Utah (I think he was
Bishop of the Episcopal Church or something similar).  He felt that it
would be of value to subject Joseph Smith's translation of the facsimiles
that are included with the Book of Abraham to the criticisms of the
Egyptologists of the time to see if they agreed with Joseph or not.  He sent
copies of the facsimiles to several of the scholars, and they all replied back
that Joseph was wrong.  (Roger, you might want to post some of their comments
so we will have the details.)  

This incident has been given a lot of "press" by those who oppose the Church,
because it is evidence that Joseph Smith didn't know how to translate, and
I agree with you, Roger, that on the surface it doesn't look very good for the
LDS Church.  However, before we LDS chuck our memberships in the wastebasket,
we need to realize that the scholars in the Church are well aware of Spalding's
experiment and have discussed it at length.  We need to read their thoughts
on the matter to give us a larger view of what Spalding's experiment really
means.  Hugh Nibley has discussed this in detail.  I should have his comments
home in an old issue of the Improvement Era if I can find it.  If the rest of
you Nibleyites will search your books for this incident, I will appreciate it;
please post what you find and I'll do likewise.

Allen

    I would be interested in knowing what Nibley and others have to say
    regarding this.  

    
    The following is from "The Mormon Establishment" page 238-239.

    The Saints of 1912 did not permit Bishop Spalding's attack on the Book
    of Abraham--and through it, on all of the Prophet's translations--to
    go without challenge.  They wrote letters, made speeches, challenged
    the Bishop's integrity, accused him of cheating, and did almost
    every thing except prove that the reproduced hieroglyphics said what
    Joseph Smith said they said.

    About a year later a commentator in 'The Utah Survey, Samual A.B.
    Mercer, produced a long analysis of the controversy in which he
    defended Bishop Spalding as a temperate and honorable man, while
    being gentle also with the the Saints.  Mercer made these comments:

        The Bishop published the findings of the scholars and the Mormons
        replied.  The replies have been now examined and found wanting. 
        It has been shown that the Mormons failed to concentrate on the point
        at issue (instead of trying to show that the fac-similes were
        correctly translated and interpreted, they confined themselves to
        squabbles about the trasliteration of Hebrew words, into a symbolical
        interpretation of the inscriptions);  that they failed to force an agreement
        between what Joseph Smith said and what we know today about Egyptian
        and Semitic language, religion, literature, art, and culture...
       
       The failure of the Mormon replies is explained by the fact that the
       unanimous opinion of the scholars in unassailable.  In the judgment
       of the scholarly world, therefore, Joseph Smith stands condemned of
      self-deception or imposition. 

	RE: Note 282.23 GENRAL::RINESMITH 

	First I would like a better definition of who "the Saints" and
	"the Mormon(s)" are.  If they were those people under Bishop
	Spalding's stewardship, then what they said is insignificant.
	Furthermore, what Bishop Spalding said or thought was insignificant
	(in this particular matter).  His only stewardship was over his 
	ward, not over the church.

	As to the "unanimous opinion of the scholars" being unassailable,
	if you would like, I could give you some scriptures of the Lord's 
	opinion of the great learned men of the world.  If in this case
	"the Mormon" is indicative of the first presidency of the church,
	I think that they would give you the same scriptures.

RE : <<< Note 282.24 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" >>>


    Charles,

    	The term the Saints and the Mormons is used to refer to the body
    of believers in 1912 that called themselves Mormons and are now
    known as LDS.

        Aside from your comments about what the Lord says about the
    opinion of the great learned men of the world (which may not
    apply in this case) WHAT CAN YOU ADD THAT EITHER SUBSTANTIATES THAT,
    YES, THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE, OR MAKES THIS A NON-ISSUE.

	RE: Note 282.25 GENRAL::RINESMITH 

>        Aside from your comments about what the Lord says about the
>    opinion of the great learned men of the world (which may not
>    apply in this case) WHAT CAN YOU ADD THAT EITHER SUBSTANTIATES THAT,
>    YES, THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE, OR MAKES THIS A NON-ISSUE.
>
	The way I see it, it is only an issue to non-LDS type persons.  And
	the "learned" scholars fit that group.  What I believe the Lord has
	told me in the Bible, Book of Morman and Doctrine and Covenants about 
	said scholars does indeed apply in this case.  Therefore, I don't 
	care what they say and it is not an issue with me - and should not 
	be with other LDS people.  Either Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or
	he isn't.  If he is, then no matter what any worldy person says or 
	does can make that fact false, and then the Book of Mormon and the 
	Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants are true and 
	correct in whatever manner they were obtained.  Period.

    I believe that there is merit in understanding what the "learned men"
    have to say, even if it disagrees with things we hold to be true.
    Though I don't use it as a basis for rejecting things that have
    been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, I think there is much that
    we can learn from them. 
    
    Generally, the body of knowledge produced by learned men contains a lot
    of truth, thought it might also contain some things that are not true.
    I believe we have a responsibility to try, or test, all things, and
    hold fast to that which is good, and true, and uplifting.
    
    Also, if we understand what they say that we disagree with, and why
    they say it, we have a better chance to discover where they might have
    gone wrong.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    Yeah, you have to be careful about throwing out all the "learned
    men". You wouldn't want to toss Hugh Nibley, would you?
    
    Ed
    

    Good one, Ed.
    
    Steve

	RE: Note 282.28 TOMCAT::PRESTON 


>    Yeah, you have to be careful about throwing out all the "learned
>    men". You wouldn't want to toss Hugh Nibley, would you?
    
	Ed,
		As this particular point has degenerated to here, and taking
	into consideration the humor intended, I would just like to point
	out that even if Hugh Nibley's "learning" was at odds in the same
	given circumstances in the question that I answered - yes, I would 
	through him out without batting an eye!

		I in no way have intended that my answer be construed to
	include all "learning".  Please keep my answers in the context they
	were given.

	Charles    

    > Good one, Ed.
    
    Steve, do you mean that, or do you mean I took a cheap shot? I'm not
    sure I can tell - please let me know...
    
    Charles, you seem to be a little touchy about this. My reply was meant
    to be partly humorous but mostly to point out that it would be too easy
    to just toss aside the "learned men" whenever we want, just on the
    basis of a scripture verse. Probably a point not even necessary to make
    to Mormons, who generally hold intelligence and education in high
    esteem...
    
    Sorry if anybody disliked what I said.
    
    Ed

No cheap shot.  The observation about Nibley being a "learned man" is quite
valid.  In fact, I was tempted to point that out myself.  I have no intent
of making anyone look bad, either.  It's good to point out what Charles was
saying about the wisdom of man being fallible and also to point out that it
should not be entirely discounted.  I suppose this could seem hypocritical 
if one believes that man is supreme in the universe or that man cannot 
comprehend any eternal things.  I think the truth is somewhere inbetween.

As far as this topic goes, I think that the discussion of the translation
of Abraham is not well developed unless parties can agree on a stance that
the translation involves both scholastic and spiritual aspects.  That's
pretty much what Nibley emphasizes in his writings concerning the validity of 
the translation.  That is, from the scholastic point of view, he shows that the
details surrounding the technical aspects of the translation are consistent 
with other scientific evidence.  But, he is also careful to point out that
this does not mean it's true, only that it is feasible.  To prove that it's
true requires the spiritual aspect. 

Steve

The following is from the F.A.R.M.S. November 1990 Newsletter (see note
125.1 for information about F.A.R.M.S.).

Nibley's Latest Lectures Now on Audiotape

Facsimile #2 of the Pearl of Great Price is an Egyptian hypocephalus.
anciently such documents were placed under the head of a deceased person
before burial.  In a series of twelve lectures recently sponsored by
F.A.R.M.S. and delivered at BYU, Hugh Nibley discussed "what the
Egyptians themselves said about the hypocephalus," "what Joseph Smith
said about it," and the facsimile's meaning and importance.

These lectures are now available on audio cassettes.  It should be noted
that the tapes lack the visual aids used by Brother Nibley during the
lectures.  However, this research will be published in the future as
part of the 'Collected Works of Hugh Nibley', and the book will be replete
with pictures and illustrations.  

The tapes can be ordered as Catalog Number N-T24 and cost $39.95 plus
$4.00 postage and handling.