Does Egyptian papyri prove Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham?! Ep. 82 

Joseph didn't mention hundreds of things he didn't think were important. He did claim there were many things in the papyri that were not needful to be translated. So he did sort of mention it.

The claim has always been that the translation was a divine revelation. The Bible indicates that Abraham lived in Egypt for many years, why would he have learned their script?

You’ve probably already read these things, but the Church has a “King Follett Discourse” Church history topic essay on it and it’s in Saints 1.522-524! ☺️

Look up what Hugh Nibley wrote about that phrase and its use in Middle Eastern literature.

@@brettmajeske3525 except that was joseph smiths own words and not inspired by middle eastern literature.

@@joewalker643 An idiom is still an idiom.

@@brettmajeske3525 and that's one way of interpreting it but is inconsistent with contemporary eyewitness testimony of Joseph pointing out "the signature of Abraham" on the papyrus.

@@joewalker643 Not really. It just means that Joseph Smith did not understand Hebrew idioms. I have no problem with Joseph misunderstanding the results of his miraculous translations. The Book of Mormon text does not identify the hill where Moroni buried the plates as Cumorah. Cumorah is where Mormon buried the plates he did not give to his son, who then wandered for over 30 years. Joseph and many other early leaders missed that fact and misidentified Cumorah. That does not make the translation by the gift and power of God wrong. just misunderstood. The same would be true of the Book of Abraham. There would be no reason for Joseph to know that "written by the hand of" was a common idiom, not only in Hebrew but many other Semitic languages, for identifying the person who commissioned or originated the text, not the scribe who copied it down from a previous scroll.

I hope you were learning about this at an accredited college not seminary

@@charles8589 This translation/revelation is not an intellectual subject, why would you need to learn about it at an accredited college?

@@richardholmes7199 you're right that it's not intellectual if you call it "revelation" but to claim it was translated is to spit in the face of true egyptologists and the actual scientific progress made since Jo Smith was conning people. Also: 30 wives, kinderhook plates, revelation to sell BOM in Canada... these are just a couple of instances where Jo's lies are blatant. Please consider that you've been deceived, it's a difficult path to take but its healthier and better than lying to yourself and staying in a racist, sexist and hurtful church.

@@charles8589 Only the STUPID ANTI-MORMONS believe the egyptologists were right.

@@charles8589 The ANTI-MORMONS and the EGYPTOLOGISTS were DEBUNKED in 2014.

They claim is that one scroll was around 60 feet long, a second was about 40 feet long, as well as enough fragments to cover the kitchen table. Modern copies of the Book of Breathings use less than ten feet, same with the Book of the Dead. Plenty of room for other things.

All criticisms are referring to the wrong transcript / papyri The BoA was not translated from the funeral eulogy. Here's a little of the true story ... quote " Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. There are a number of criticisms related to the recovered fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri. . Why is the Book of Abraham text not on the papyri? . Summary: We do not claim to know why the text of the Book of Abraham (or the missing Book of Joseph) is not in evidence on the fragments of papyrus that were recovered. Critics, of course, simply assume this to be conclusive evidence that Joseph was a fraud. From a believer's perspective, however, there are several possible theories to account for this: 1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading.

The diary is also clear that it was a revelation from God, not a secular translation. The diary is not clear which of the multiple papyri inspired the revelation. To assume that the 11 current fragments are all Joseph had is not logical either.

Paul Gregersen debunked the arrogant Egyptologist opinions against Joseph Smith by presenting proper interpretational understanding on translation.

Oh that's hilarious. A bit off subject however papaya and it's leaf extract, most excellent for people with low blood platelets

Please refrain from frying the Book of Abraham. It's not that kind of ham.

The problem is how can anyone know if it was translated correctly or not when we do not have all the fragments and scrolls in Joseph's procession? Today only eleven incomplete fragments exist, where the records are of two complete scrolls and enough fragments to fill multiple drawers. The current fragments fit in a single manilla folder.

@KMJ I am not sure I understand the question. There isn't enough actual evidence to either verify or falsify. Proving something either way requires evidence that no one has.

@KMJ The facs were never translated period, and were never canonized as scripture. I learned that in Institute bacl in the 80s. The only claim the Church ever made about them is that they were approximations. So I am not sure what you are complaining about. None of the explanations contained an interpretation of hieroglyphs, so they are not relevant to that discussion.

Good grief -it seems as obvious as the nose on your face that Smith thought nobody would be able to translate the papyrus and so made everything up. The great fire saved the LDS from having to invent some craxy explanation as to how Smith got it so wrong. My bet would be that young David here would have crawled out of his rabbit hole by now with such incontrovertible evidence.

All criticisms are referring to the wrong transcript / papyri The BoA was not translated from the funeral eulogy. Here's a little of the true story ... quote " Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. There are a number of criticisms related to the recovered fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri. . Why is the Book of Abraham text not on the papyri? . Summary: We do not claim to know why the text of the Book of Abraham (or the missing Book of Joseph) is not in evidence on the fragments of papyrus that were recovered. Critics, of course, simply assume this to be conclusive evidence that Joseph was a fraud. From a believer's perspective, however, there are several possible theories to account for this: 1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading.

We do not have all the papyri, so no one can know what was or was not on the was that were lost in the Chicago fire.

What is your religion? I find that it is very continent to argue someone else beliefs while your faith is off the battle field. I would be happy to answer any questions you have and assist you in finding sources and some evidence to back and support our beliefs. However for this to be fair, you need to reveal your beliefs and answer my questions.

@@JustMe-yq8uh They do not have to tell you their beliefs, that shows right there that your own are not capable of being scrutinized.

@@corneliusmakin-bird7540 Mormons deal with criticism more then any other religion in the US… bring to me what you have a problem with in regards to my faith and I will explain the truth to you. Please. One question at a time. If you dislike Mormons just for being Mormon that is a true example of bigotry.

@@JustMe-yq8uh What you can assert without evidence, you can also dismiss without evidence. I do not know why you are going towards putting in a strawman argument of saying that disliking them because they are following something is bigotry, when I never brought that up. I have nothing against Mormons, but I am against false doctrines and liars (Joseph Smith). There is nothing in the BoM that can be used as credible. When it comes to genetics the whole ‘religion’ falls apart. On this channel they have tried to bring up this issue, and they have repeatedly failed. With archaeological contexts in the new world, again it’s a complete failure. I do not know your background, but all you have to do is take a basic principles of archaeology course to realize that the claims do not match up with reality. On this same channel, they use strawman arguments taken selectively from archaeologists to pass along their twisted narrative. There would have been a scrap of evidence by now and there is completely nothing. Those on this channel fail to bring up ideas about shared trade in artifacts, collective cultural memory, do pots equal people, and the diffusion of domesticated animals, etc…. There are countless things I could mention and there are plenty of videos explaining the major faults in Mormonism where many in the church just do not want to address as there is to much cognitive dissonance. In all when they are finally questioned, they just say ‘well have faith’, this is blind faith then if you cannot provide anything to back up the claims. I have heard some of them even say that ‘as long as you tell yourself to believe, you eventually will’ this is delusional thinking. This is made even more worse when they go door-to-door tricking people to believe this nonsense, then that is called lying. If the Mormon supernatural claims existed (the god/gods/angels/their ancient prophets), don’t you think that they would have been a little more crafty/ superior enough to show at least any shard of evidence or could be tested? All that you are left with is theology that makes claims on certain things that cannot be disproven, at least other religions have archaeological contexts that can be seen and have actual histories supported from secular and scientific sources. Lastly, another cop out is the idea that they use when cornered is ‘well, I feel in inside me that this is real and that the BoM is all true. Well, I feel that Confucius and Muhammed are real and now telling me to write these things to clarify what they want. See how silly this all is.

@@JustMe-yq8uh I have friends that are lds! The problem lies with JS! He dabbled in magic using peep stones to find treasure then used said peep stones to eventually translate into the bom! The Bible clearly states to stay away from diviners, soothsayers and the like! So it’s the basis of faith that most people don’t like and try to point out…. JS was a brilliant brainwasher

If Joseph "made a mistake" about the papyri, then where did the Book of Abraham come from? Was the papyri merely a catalyst to get his prophetic juices flowing? Then why was Joseph able to receive D&C Section 7, an epistle written by John, with no catalyst whatsoever? Why would God allow most of the papyri to survive the fire just so Egyptologists could later translate it for real and the translations totally wouldn't match? Was it to test our faith? Then why didn't God let Joseph release the lost 116 pages that He told Joseph NOT to re-translate because God was worried people would change the manuscript and the translations wouldn't match (D&C 10)? Why wouldn't God just release the Book of Lehi as a test to our faith?

@@BrianMillsMFA Just a brief correction, the majority of the papyri did not survive the fire. Comparing the fragments we currently have to the historical record indicates we have less than 10% of the papyri to which Joseph had access. His described mention the long roll, the short rolls, and then 47 different fragments. We only have 11 fragments today.

@@brettmajeske3525 Absolutely false. The Church has most of the papyri. Most of it. And if God was going to allow the papyri to burn that HAD the BoA on it, why wouldn't He just make sure it ALL burned up? Because it makes Joe look REALLY bad that every single scrap of surviving papyri has exactly 0.0% to do with Abraham. Every. Single. Scrap.

@@BrianMillsMFA Where are you getting that we have the majority of the papyri? For such an incredible assertion I am going to need citations. We have only eleven fragments that together can be fit on 3-5 standard sheets of office paper. The long roll was described as being 40-60 feet long. The small roll was described as being 20-30 feet long. Plus the extent fragments were described as covering the entire surface of Joseph Smith's desk with more covering various chairs and tables. One observer estimated over 47 fragments not including the intact rolls. We have far less than that. The fragments we have represent less than 10% of the Book of Breathings. So even if there was nothing else included there should be ten times the papyri as what we now have. We have currents fragments from multiple sources besides the Book of Breathings, so that would even increase the amount of the originals. "And if God was going to allow the papyri to burn that HAD the BoA on it, why wouldn't He just make sure it ALL burned up? " There is a big difference between allowing something to happen and causing it. I do not know of anyone claiming that God set the Great Chicago Fire just to obscure the source material for the Book of Mormon. We live in a fallen world were bad things happen. The fragments that survived did so because they were sold prior to the fire. The museum inventory records two extent rolls, both of which failed to survive. The current Book of Abraham is only about 1/3 of the translation received by Smith, according to his scribes of the time. The rest of the translation was lost in the destruction of the Missouri press. According to JS, God allowed many of early Gospel knowledge to be lost. One of the projects JS wanted to do at the time of his murder was retranslated the missing portion, as well as finish his version of the Bible. Both projects were interrupted by his martyrdom. Elder Maxwell offered his belief that during the Millennium all the lost scripture, including the rest of the Book of Abraham and the 116 pages of the Book of Lehi will be returned. Even Egyptologists who object to the Book of Abraham admit that multiple texts would be included in burial chambers. So even from a modern academic perspective there is no requirement that every fragments be related.

The simple answer is that Joseph Smith is a liar and his teachings violate the Torah and original Hebrew and Greek text “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This is a well constructed Abraham video, however, like all of the other BYU productions concerning the book of Abraham it never explains the overall purpose of the book of Abraham. It doesn't ever explain why Kolob represents the priesthood nor why the brightest star representing Christ is the source of all light to the prophets nor why Abraham, Isaack, and Jacob are called stars! And why they borrow their light from the brightest star Christ. This leads you to something vital that everyone is totally missing. The video fails to explain why the Egyptians stole the birthright from Noah and how the facsimile 2 is actually about the gospel of Noah and Adam? this is the message of understanding most vital. Abraham 1:14 clearly says that the Egyptians counterfeited the gospel of Noah and turned it into Idolatry. If you read chapter one you solve the entire translation question every bodies debating over!. Joseph Smith was translating what the Egyptians got wrong back into what God wanted by revelation. Likewise, This video doesn't explain Gods purpose for sending Joseph Smith the Joseph in Egypt scroll to translate it also? The above video fails to explain Gods purpose for preserving ancient Josephs scroll for thousands of years only to arrive at the modern prophets hand, and how Joseph Smith was to relate it to the book of Abraham?. I clearly explain this matter in my video "Book of Abraham part 9" The above video doesn't explain why Joseph Smith challenged the whole world to discover the encrypted numbers of 9 through 11 in his explanation given in facsimile 2. I easily explain this matter by showing you the very text itself? question? Why did Joseph Smith convert Egyptian characters into gospel teachings that were related to 9 heavenly stars or 9 heavenly bodies? Since these teachings are obviously the main subject for all 3 Abraham facsimiles then why are all of these church member videos trying to explain what they think the importance of Egyptian mythology means instead? God cares nothing about the meaning of these Egyptian myths. This seems to always be their focus instead of the plain gospel message? Why are they ignoring the timelines in the facsimiles that are identical with the Bible including Daniel and Revelation? this is incredible stuff and they don't even mention it? Learn what the book of Abraham is all about for the first time. Its right here now. Click RU-vid title "Book of Abraham part 9" by P. Gregersen

@@paulgregersen3570 thanks for that. I only managed to get 20 minutes into that 4+hour behemoth, but I like the explanation he was explaining the truth behind the myth, not the mythology.

Sean S. I don't think we will have proof like a prosecutor would present to a jury. I have enough proof. The proof I have is the Holy Ghost telling me it is true.

Every example of a "direct hit" is nothing Joseph couldn't have learned from the knowledge of Egyptian at the time with a little common sense. If you want to count the "hits" you need to count the "misses" too.

Well since the vast majority of the evidence was destroyed in the Chiago fire, we can only look at textual analysis rather than direct evidence.

Well there are some unique claims that sent in the bible but are found from other sources. Here is Kwaku's video on it: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Kw6MGlpafs.html

Hamann9631: Would you rather have evidence like what is used in a court of law or confirmation from the Holy Spirit?

Well our prophet said we should try and call ourselves by our true name: Members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. As for the anti Mormon thing. I don't think that are bothers being called that, because as far as I know I haven't heard critics of the church call them selves Anti/ex Members of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints only ex/anti Mormon

Chase Allen dude I don’t have all day. Ex-Mormon is straight and to the point, just like Mormon.

david janbaz So your saying we should only call ourselves something that other people made up for us instead of what our actual name is? Our true name isn't the Mormon church that is a nickname given to us as an insult. We later accepted it but we did not come up with it. You may not like our true name but you can't force us to call us by a name you want us to call ourselves.

I find it interesting that people need to create theories and stories to try to explain their faith.

@@xxxgabaxxxWhich is unfortunate for Mormons. I came across a great quote that said something along the lines of "if you need to make up excuses to explain your belief, it is not the truth. If it is the truth, you will not need excuses." Growing up in the Mormon church, I heard nothing but excuses to explain the many holes and inconsistencies this church has. The lack of archaeological evidence, the inconsistent translations, etc. Always met with an excuse. Turning to the Bible, I am met with the FULL truth, never needing an excuse. I am so incredibly angry at Joseph for leading astray many millions of people. He very clearly had help, and taught a false Christ and church. If I am wrong, then the Lord will show me, and I accept that. But from the research i've done, I just cannot believe this load of BS any longer.

I think not. God has come down from heaven several times in one way or another and said "look it's me" most of humanity just shrugged their shoulders and went "don't think so". Jesus said " He was God" and the Jews killed him for saying it.

That characterization of the critics is false, and he even says why later in this video. Critics don't think it was "convenient" that "a good portion" was destroyed in the Chicago fire because what we have to study are already the relevant segments. Using the vague measurement of "a good portion" is what's convenient here.

Especially when he points out the poor references by John Gee supporting the much longer scroll idea.

@@davidjanbaz7728 less but there part of the Bible that are equal

@@adammcguk the longer scroll theory is pretty much dead imo. The only thing the beilving Mormon is left is Catalyst. Which had the advantage of being unfalsablie but once you accept Catalyast , The Book of Arabraham is no longer what the church says it is or what the Smith said it was

@@davidjanbaz7728 in other words I think beilving the Bible literally is just as untenable as the BOM. We can say a global flood never happened.

@@coalhouse1981 Why would it be dead? We have records listing it being sold in chicago?

That's where you're mistaken because Joseph of Egypt received more greater blessings from God than all his other brothers did. You may have received the Messah through the line of Judah, his brother but Joseph recieved the everlasting blessings of the gospel throughout his generations, and that is why the temples are now on the earth today as a result of fulfilling the blessings that Joseph was given by God. You don't get to choose just because you have a Bible on where God places his choicest of blessings, for God has that perrogative to choose for Himself where to bestow them or where on the planet to send his Son to teach his gospel.. This is why some of the blessings came through Judah's line to the messiah and they had the gospel in Israel and established the church through the twelve apostles who had the authority. but that authority was lost when they were killed... But God also had another line with the gospel blessings already established in America through the descendants of Joseph of Egypt who had inherited the blessings from Abraham.. So it wasn't just one line getting all the blessings from God in Israel but two lines that the prophets of God would come down through.....

Well that is one interpretation, but that is not what the text literally says. Pharaoh claimed the right of the Priesthood through his mother, who was a daughter of Ham. Abraham 1:22-26 never actually mentions Cain. Verses 26-27 describe that Pharaoh was denied the Priesthood do to lineage, but not specifically any curse. As Exodus explains, at that time Priesthood was a birthright that passed from Father to Son, but not through daughters. Hugh Nibley has written much on how this passage correlates with Hebrew traditions and practices. It does not matter if Joseph married an Egyptian woman, because the right of the Priesthood was not claimed because of it. JS never preached that Africans could not hold the Priesthood, so your whole statement is a Strawman.

@@brettmajeske3525 Joseph of Egypt's Father was Jacob, and his Father was Isaac who was the Son of Abraham, So someone had to have ordained Abraham to the Priesthood..The office of the Priesthood is not Automatically Inherited, one has to be actually ordained into the office by the laying on of hands by one who holds the priesthood authority. But even though Terah Abraham's Father was worshpping the gods of the Egyptians, Melchiezedek was the high priest of God whom Abraham was paying tithes to. if we go down Melchizedek's line we find his Father is Lamech and his father is Methuselah who was the son of Enoch. Melchiezdek is the only one who can ordain Abraham into the priesthood and transfer the authority of the priesthood of God over to him..

@@germanslice Yes one still had to be ordained, but whom was ordained was often determined by lineage. Issac, not Esau received the birthright blessings of the Priesthood. My point was that Jake Seward interpretation of the Book of Abraham ignores both the actual text, and the wider cultural understanding. It is an interpretation refuted not only by Hugh Nibley in the 60's and 70's, but both James E Talmage and BH Roberts in the early 1900's. Even Parley P Pratt argued against such an understanding with both Brigham Young and John Taylor.

I think God will ordain whoever he wants into the Priesthood by adoption and not just by direct lineage. That's why all the elders in the church hold the priesthood no matter what tribe they come out from as they were adopted into the House of Israel to inherit the blessings of Abraham when they accepted the Restoration thats why we have the temples on the earth today.. That's why the Lord's sanctuary the temple is among the people in Zion. For God said this what he was going to do in the last days in order to fulfill the covenanted promises he made to Abraham to bless all his seed, to adopt everybody into the blessings of the priesthood of scattered Israel both here on this side and on the other side of the veil so I think you need to study the scriptures more especially the prophecies of the Restoration of the House of Israel in the Old Testament and also the Gathering of the House of Israel, spoken by the Prophets Isaiah, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel who talked alot about the events in the last days of the Times of the Gentiles (which is our time today) and then scriptures like 'letting the prisoners out of the prison' will begin to make sense when you realise the gathering is on both sides of the veil, not just here only on this side. It all leads up into the temple, into Mount Zion since that's where Scattered Israel are going to be gathered to in the last days. Isaac had the priesthood But because of transgression Esau had sold his rights to the priesthood to Jacob. So Jacob was the heir of the blessings because he kept the commandments of God. As God has said, all rights and blessings of the priesthood can only be exercised upon conditions of righteousness.

19th century scientists thought so, and journalists reported that in papers. Jospeh Smith never made that claim himself, he only commented of what newspapers of his day had said.

Thanks for the suggestion! Off the top of my head we've done a video on If/And Conditionals in the BoM, and I think there's a video or two coming up that addresses some other linguistic stuff. But I'm sure there's a lot more that we could do on the subject.

David Snell yes please !!

They can, it won't be logical, truthful or based on peer reviewed science... but I'm sure they're capable of making a video about how nothing *fully proves* that the olmec language didn't come from the old world. I'd rather see them explain DNA analysis that made the church walk back its claim about native American's being the descendants of lehi.

The video doesn’t “fail” to explain these ideas. Doing so is not the purpose of the video at all. They’re topics for their own video. This one is about the controversy surrounding the book’s translation and provenance, not what any of it means theologically.

@@jordanwutkee2548 The discussion of it's controversy doesn't help anyone who is confused about the book of Abraham translation process to ever understand the purpose of the facsimiles. Trying to make it into a mysterious translation process is destroying faith and not ever confirming anything. The facsimiles are literally cross referenced by the same number order matching the same Egyptian characters exactly with Joseph Smiths explanations. The video tries to say that these numbered comparisons are unrelated to the translation. This is blatantly dishonest and not helpful when the text shows their direct relationship. I literally demonstrate verifiable evidence that fully explains exactly why these matching number contrasts show that it is a real translation. Trying to get around the critics and sidestep the controversy as being challenged is doing more damage than if you would have just left it alone. Why not look at my evidence that many believe clears up the controversy? Seems everyone copies the same BYU line of linear thinking which is very empty and avoids more than it ever explains. Thousands have already watched my Book of Abraham part 7 and 9 and no longer care about the controversy after being satisfied with a much better explanation with far more evidence to back it up. Click RU-vid title "Book of Abraham part 9".

@@paulgregersen3570 Dude. Relax. Not every video has to cover every aspect of a topic. Not everyone has the time or the inclination for a deep dive. For those who do, it sounds like you’ve got them well-covered over there on your channel. Meanwhile, it definitely is helpful to many people to be presented with a quick and simple explanation showing how the sound and fury generated by the church’s detractors about this particular issue is misplaced at best. This little video is great in that regard. It takes the wind out of the critics’ sails and corners them. Then commentators like yourself can come in and finish the job, assuming your interpretations and conclusions are correct.

@@jordanwutkee2548 I hope you are right. I do get feedback from people on the edge of losing their testimonies who actually want more understanding and are willing to invest more time than short sound bite presentations give to them. The easy quick answers in a short presentation on this subject might be enough however for some who are not struggling with a real faith crisis after having gotten themselves entangled in a multitude of anti Mormon unanswered questions. It depends on how deeply they've been poisoned by what they've already seen that has upsettingly confused them. The easy answers that donnot fully explain translation questions can anger some who feel they need much more. Many express the concern that the church apologists dishonestly avoid many deeper concerns they are left hanging with.

@@mikkifrompreston4396 If you watch my RU-vid video titled "Book of Abraham part 13" You will see how Joseph Smith plainly answered the translation matter right in the Abraham text and also explain how these detractors have cleverly distracted your focus away from his clear explanations already in the Abraham texting as plane as day. I promise you I can clear up this matter in this one video and expose exactly what has confused you.

The egyptologists were debunked in 2014.

Richard Holmes. I’ve got nothing at all against then LDS church but my feeling is that it is adding to the bible. I’ve got an interest in it. But it’s ideas of pre human existence and all these things don’t fit with bible doctrine that tell us that Adam was made from the dust of the ground and returned to the dust of the ground. No mention of pre mortal existence.

lol

@@cultfiction3865 ''adding to the bible'' Revelations just happened to be added to the end of the bible. The bible is a compilation, not a book. ''pre human existence'' Jeremiah 1:5.

@@cultfiction3865 Then you haven't read the scriptures properly. Because it wrong to assume that Adam and Eve only came about on the Seventh day of creation from the dust of the earth, because Adam and Eve were with God on the Fifth day of Creation and that was in Chapter 2 before God had even formed their mortal bodies from out of the dust of the earth in Chapter 4 to create the man and before God had even put the man asleep to take a rib from out of him to form the woman also. it was on the SEVENTH Day that God had created their mortal bodies. But the Bible says that they had existed with God on the Sixth Day. Therefore Adam and Eve did exist before the Seventh Day with God as Spirits before the mortal creation of their bodies from the dust of the earth had even come about.

Hey, Trevor...put aside your hateful burden and check this out and think for yourself: All criticisms are referring to the wrong transcript / papyri The BoA was not translated from the funeral eulogy. Here's a little of the true story ... quote "Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. There are a number of criticisms related to the recovered fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri. . Why is the Book of Abraham text not on the papyri? . Summary of the Museum's examiners: We do not claim to know why the text of the Book of Abraham (or the missing Book of Joseph) is not in evidence on the fragments of papyrus that were recovered. Critics, of course, simply assume this to be conclusive evidence that Joseph was a fraud. From a believer's perspective, however, there are several possible theories to account for this: 1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading... We cannot conclude that the Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith is fraudulent.

@@joeoleary9010 it's all a political hoax💛🧡💚❤💙

The whole story being what, exactly? I do appreciate the honesty here where he says, Joseph Smith believed he actually had a scroll containing the Book of Abraham, but there's little to indicate he had anything but, well, a funerary text. You can imagine all sorts of fantastical situations in which he held "the real deal," but the most likely explanation is that he made it up. You can call that "inspired writing" or whatever, but let's drop the idea that this is a "translation."

@@bradrjones1 You seem to think that the words "inspired writing" and "translation" are not already synonyms. When LDS use the word 'translation' with regards to the Book of Abraham we have only done so in the spiritual sense of the word, never the academic.

@@brettmajeske3525 You sir, do not know your history. The LDS church flaunted for a century the literal translation abilities of Joseph and languages, namely via the book of Abraham and the Kinderhook plates, until it became clear that "translation" was not what was happening. They backed off that claim and have very recently admitted to the more spiritual "translation" method.

@@Man-jf6lz Well, BH Roberts wrote extensively about "spiritual translation" is the early 1900's. Institute and seminary manuals of the 70s and 80s talked about 'spiritual translations'. Those are just books I have immediate access to. Every Conference talk that I've searched for the term 'translation or translate" were either about modern translation of the Book of Mormon into languages other than English, or Joseph Smith's 'spiritual' translations. The only evidence I have found supporting your thesis is a single Ensign article not even written by a general authority. Most articles support a spiritual understanding of Joseph's translation abilities. Now conference talks and articles before 1900 are not yet searchable, but your assertion seemed to claim the attitude change happen well after 1900. If you have other evidence in support of your view I would welcome the opportunity to review it.

The problem with Ritner's rebuttal is he doesn't actually address the most important issues Gee and Muhlestein bring up, that is the assumption that fragment 11 is the source of the translation. The assumption is based on the idea that the GAEL was created first and used to translated fragment 11. There are multiple problems with this assumption that would take too long to get into. Muhlestein has an entire presentation on the FAIR You Tube channel. Ritner does not even address the concerns either of either Gee or Muhlestein, and does not even seem familiar with their actual assertions, only with straw man.

Google Book of Abraham pt 1 (Why Egyptologists are wrong) youtube. A video debunking the egyptologists due to their assumption Joseph Smith was supposed to translate the Book of Abraham Egyptian sensen text papyri characters to what the egyptologists say they meant. The egyptologists were debunked in 2014. The anti-Mormon pukes aren't very good at spreading the word on this.

@@davidjanbaz7728 Take your anti-Mormon crap elsewhere.

Right, so this argument that "not even Joseph knew what he was doing" actually throws god under the bus. If you're willing to concede that the most clear and obvious approach for understanding documents like the GAEL is that it is an actual recorded attempt at a translation of Egyptian into English by BOTH Joseph Smith and his colleges through their own makeshift methodology. Then you would have to admit that the most reasonable conclusion is that the Book of Abraham is a 19th century fabrication. If we were to follow the implications of your argument about God just sticking his scripture into Joseph's head during this process (which would otherwise be easily attributed to Joseph's creativity among a couple other factors), we would conclude that the LDS god brought about the Book of Abraham through deceptive means, and allowed Joseph Smith and other early associates of his to perpetuate a falsifiable truth claim about his own scripture, that would be among the primary reasons for a mass exodus out of the church in the 21st century. Why would God do this!?!?! That's ridiculous! But if you're right and the LDS god exists, he clearly does not care about truth and does not care about people belonging to his church. He doesn't care about people making and keeping covenants with him because _he knew what would happen in the future if he allowed Joseph and his scribes to continue on in what looks like fraud._ He knows the end from the beginning and he could have cleared it up at any point in time. This belief (that Joseph thought he was making an inter-lingual translation) is what I call a "theologically condemning belief". It's basically, a belief or teaching that, if it were an official truth claim of the church, would render the church's claims of divine inception definitively false. And since the LDS god never cleared up a theologically condemning belief, he can't hold apostates accountable for leaving the church when they've all understandably become convinced through the evidence that the Book of Abraham is a 19th century fabrication. It would be the most clear and obvious and most reasonable conclusion. Why would god allow his own scripture to appear fraudulent? How could someone tell the difference between a fraudulent work and holy scripture? He alone is responsible for the apostasy of tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands by this point) of members. Through his actions, he has demonstrated that he is an irresponsible, negligent and untrustworthy being. He has lied to mankind about his moral nature, which makes it indistinguishable from Satan's nature. Who knows what else he would be lying to us about?

Does your argument not come across as straw grasping to you? Does it not seem like a weak argument? Is it really that legitimate to you?

@@ThomasJDavis Joseph Smith was never, like the anti-Mormons and the egyptologists assumed, supposed to translate the Book of Abraham Egyptian sensen text characters to what the egyptologists say they meant. The assumption that Joseph Smith was supposed to translate the characters to what the egyptologists say they meant is what debunked the anti-Mormons and the egyptologists.

Even more importantly, the church as a whole gathered funds in order to purchase them. I would argue that this 'communal effort' from the church would also be a potential reason why Joseph would be able to say whatever he wanted and the church support him, as throwing the papyri out would have been throwing out the funds that many of his congregation had worked diligently to collect. In other words 'they had something to lose'.

Yeah, back then they didn’t treat historical artifacts with nearly as much sanctity as they do today. This guy travelled the United States pawning off all kinds of Egyptian artifacts to anyone who’d pay. Joseph got two scrolls and a mummy or two for an astonishingly low price. Haha

Bought them from a traveling mummy show

Ritner was not commissioned to translate "...the actual papyrus Joseph used to translate the book of abraham." nor has he made that claim. He did translate the fragments, which the LDS Church has never claimed to be the source material. He assumes the fragments were the only material available to Joseph, but doesn't really make a case as to why that must be case.

but its fake, look at other sources. Reformed egyptian is not a thing.

It’s glorious.

@@pmx5684 It actually is. It’s called Demotic. Look it up.

Yeah, yeah, but I am the very best!

The claim has always been that the text was the result of divine revelation, too much emphasis is being placed on the tools and not the message. We only have less than half of the text of the B of A in any case, most was lost when fleeing from Kirkland and in the Missouri troubles.

Well, he was murdered. A later prophet did indeed present during a solemn assembly.

But it was wrong

It is less that Joseph had unique definitions as that the word has multiple meanings, some of which have changed over time. To insist that any writer from 200 years ago must use a modern definition, and only that modern definition is problematic.

@@brettmajeske3525you act like 200 years ago is ancient history.

@@whynochips3887 Linguistically 200 years is significant. Language does not remain static. Here are some examples from Webster's 1828: "Awful" meant "That strikes with awe; that fills with profound reverence." instead of the modern sense of something bad or terrible. "Want" meant "Deficiency; defect; the absence of that which is necessary or useful; as a want of power or knowledge from any purpose; want of food and clothing." instead of a desire. "Computer" meant "One who computes; a reckoner; a calculator. A mathematician." instead of a machine. So "wanting an awful computer" 200 years ago meant "lacking an awe inspiring mathematician" whereas today it means "desiring a bad electronic device". The three most common definitions for "translation" were: 1. The act of removing or conveying from one place to another; removal; as the translation of a disease from the foot to the breast. 2. The removal of a bishop from one see to another. 3. The removal of a person to heaven without subjecting him to death. The modern sense of "translation" is listed as fourth. Other less common definitions include: a sermon given by a Bishop, transmission of scripture, and crossing a river. While those usages are so rare today that they are no longer mentioned in most dictionaries, that does not mean they can be ignored when reading text from the 1800s.

I do not know of any LDS who do not think Joseph Smith had common scrolls. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Paul Gregersen debunked the Egyptologists.

He was specific about what he meant, and what he said that all his translations were by the gift and power of God, which is the only explanations he ever gave. I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but it sounds like you think Smith made more claims than what he did.

All criticisms are referring to the wrong transcript / papyri The BoA was not translated from the funeral eulogy. Here's a little of the true story ... quote " Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. There are a number of criticisms related to the recovered fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri. . Why is the Book of Abraham text not on the papyri? . Summary: We do not claim to know why the text of the Book of Abraham (or the missing Book of Joseph) is not in evidence on the fragments of papyrus that were recovered. Critics, of course, simply assume this to be conclusive evidence that Joseph was a fraud. From a believer's perspective, however, there are several possible theories to account for this: 1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading.

I believe the essay spent more time on theory # 3 because what more can be said about. The was a big fire, most of Chicago burned to the ground. We lost evidence. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. It is easier to speculate about theory number 3 because then evidence is needed, although my admittedly incomplete survey of LDS members leads me to believe that #2 is the most wide spread.

I pray God saves you from this cult soon. God bless

Since neither the Church, nor any Prophet had ever claimed that the fragments would contain the Book of Abraham, I do not understand why that should matter. Not translating into the Book of Abraham would only matter if there was an expectation that the fragments should translate as such.

The facsimiles are a part of the Book of Abraham, but they are not the source.

Yes, it's dishonest.

I agree. It would be completely illogical for JS to allow the church to keep them if he knew they were useless. Either JS was dishonest in keeping it OR he had no idea what it actually was.

The ANTI-MORMONS have been PROVEN STUPID for assuming Joseph Smith was supposed to translate the characters to what the egyptologists say they meant. Joseph Smith was right, the anti-Mormon pukes were wrong.

Richard Holmes such Christ like love for your enemies

All criticisms are referring to the wrong transcript / papyri The BoA was not translated from the funeral eulogy. Here's a little of the true story ... quote " Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. There are a number of criticisms related to the recovered fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri. . Why is the Book of Abraham text not on the papyri? . Summary: We do not claim to know why the text of the Book of Abraham (or the missing Book of Joseph) is not in evidence on the fragments of papyrus that were recovered. Critics, of course, simply assume this to be conclusive evidence that Joseph was a fraud. From a believer's perspective, however, there are several possible theories to account for this: 1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading.

Ahahahah

@@johnlee1352 1. Joseph Smith by his own words, reference, and example generated BOA texts from each papyrus. 2 and 3. It is highly unlikely a scroll from a thousand years earlier would be placed with an unrelated scroll a thousand years later. 4. The Rosetta stone destroys that theory.

@@ptrd 1. That supports what John Lee wrote. In order to claim that there is proof that the BofA is translated incorrectly, one must first assert that the 12 fragments currently extent are the source. If the translation was based on lost fragments/papyri then the criticism does not hold up. 2 and 3 Except there are examples of multiple unrelated scrolls being stored together in other more modern digs. They would be copies, not originals, but Egyptian funerary practice does not exclude borrowing from multiple religious traditions. The Rosetta stone is not all inclusive. It does not preclude alternate translations.

@brettmajeske3525 1. The BoA was not translated incorrectly, it was fraudulent. This is not simply a claim of proof but well established by Egyptologists. Dr. A.H. Sayce, James H. Breastfed, PH.D, Professor Richard Parker to name a few. The wordings you chose are very tricky. 2 Simply saying the criticism doesn't hold up based on inserted conjecture is weak. Implanting seeds of doubt is very deceptive. 3. These "translations" are based on the fragments provided in documentation by LDS authorities. The lost fragment theory is a remedy to the then newly discovered evidence contradicting Joseph Smith's fabrication.

Until we found scraps of the same papyri that JS supposedly translated and, with the knowledge from the Rosetta Stone, found his translations were wrong, thereby proving the opposite.

@@BrendonKing Exactly!!!

@@BrendonKing It's what happens when you don't have all of the exact scrolls that JS supposedly used and only have a fraction of what he utilized. Context is everything when translating languages and without the rest of the scrolls, it's practically impossible to know if what he wrote is true given evidence alone. The funeral scrolls would have most likely given the reader of the BoA insight as to how Abraham's father viewed death, or life after death, since his father was supposedly "pagan". Saying something is wrong with only a fraction of evidence is practically the same as condemning someone to death for a murder because the supposed victim didn't show up for work. That logic doesnt hold water. In both scenarios, one would need more evidence to make an objective evaluation as to whether or not the parties in question are telling the truth. Likewise, look into when that translation of the scrap was made in in relation to the year of the Great Chicago Fire. The second theory in the video explained this idea. Muchlove my guy. ✊ Hope this clears it up.

Joseph Wright I find this to be a convenient excuse for much of Joseph’s translations. Until you find a papyrus that contains exactly what he wrote, you can continue to use this silly argument that “it wasn’t the papyrus that HE used”. I find this to be quite the convenient excuse any time Joseph’s ability to translate languages comes into question, seeing the primary document is always damaged or otherwise incapable of being examined by parties unaffiliated by the Mormon church.

Charles Hart there’s too many to keep track of. The explanations get more and more zany the more you ask.

Do you think Joseph didn't translate this? We know he did. How did he do it? That is the unknown, as the fellow explained in the video. Joseph wasn't an Egyptologist. In fact, he barely could write (effectively) in English. But he was a prophet who got many revelations from God. What prophet has been more prolific than Joseph? Not many, if any. Consider his volume of work. "useless" Joseph didn't believe all the Egyptian material was useless. His revelations were very useful. Fair scholars -- even non-LDS ones -- know this.

@@nealljones I would need to see supporting evidence to this claim that 'non-lds' Egyptology experts supported Joseph's alleged revelations. It seems to me from the research I've conducted, many of the Egyptology 'experts' that support Joseph's claims tend to be affiliated to some degree with BYU and the greater CES as a whole.

@@BrendonKing Some scholars are dogmatic and don't grant when a religious leader gets things right. Many scholars, however, are not dogmatic. I listen to lots of podcasts and watch lots of RU-vids. Many non-LDS scholars praise our faith for its many virtues and revelations. To not do so would be wrong. We should do the same to our Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and other friends. Each faith has many gems and revelations. Non-Mormon scholars, for example, speak at BYU frequently to share insights on many topics. While here, they praise the institution, the sponsoring Church, and its students for the many obvious virtues. Including for many shared and unique virtues. Joseph's Book of Abraham is very much like ancient scripture. Non-Mormon scholars say this. Some scholars join the Church. Most do not. Most are secular. Nothing is proved by one person's actions. Are some parts -- especially its origins -- controversial? Yes. But fair-minded people look at the evidence --- especially the lack of evidence (no original manuscripts and the unclear jumble of what we do have) -- and realize much judgment must be withheld. Be sober and temperate. And have faith.

The ANTI-MORMONS were PROVEN STUPID for assuming Joseph Smith's was supposed to translate the characters to what the egyptologists say they meant.

Where I can I find this

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers were only used as an aid. The egyptologists were debunked in 2014.

Google ''Book of Abraham pt 1 (Why Egyptologists are wrong) you tube'', then view video #2 Egyptologists back Smith shocking news. Videos debunking the Egyptologists, the anti-Mormons are having nightmares.

@@richardholmes7199 thank you

@@majesticliberatoroftheoppr3971 Mormonism is a cult. Leave before you go to hell