Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham pt. 1
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 15:01:36 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

A serious discussion of the Book of Abraham (BOA) requires some
methodological considerations.

1.  There are two mutually exclusive theories which attempt to explain
the origin of the Book of Abraham:

1.1  Joseph Smith (JS) was a conscious fraud (or a sincere lunatic), and
as such, invented the BOA and his interpretations of the three
facsimiles.  If this is the case we can expect JS's Egyptological
interpretations to bear only a random chance relationship to the
realities of ancient Egypt.  This is the standard non-Mormon and anti-
Mormon position.

1.2  The LDS, on the other hand, maintain that JS was a prophet of God,
and as such, God revealed to him the contents of an ancient document,
the BOA.  If this is the case we should be able to find clear evidence that
the BOA matches its purported ancient setting.  Note that if JS was
indeed a prophet, he did not translate the hieroglyphics using the
methodology of a modern Egyptologist (dictionaries, transliterations,
etc.); rather, the meaning was revealed to him.  (This would be a form
of the gift interpreting of tongues through the Holy Spirit; 1 Cor. 12-14;
Acts 2:1-42, 10:44-48, 11:15-17, 19:2-7)

Although there can be variations on these two themes, all explanations
I have seen fall broadly into one of these two categories.


2.  There is also the problem of assumptions and presuppositions on
surround both of the above theories.

   2.1  Secular interpretations:  The assumptions of the secularists
(atheist/agnostic) is that God either does not exist, or does not/cannot
intervene directly in human affairs.  Therefore, it is an a priori
assumption that JS could not be a prophet, and therefore he must
either be a conscious fraud or a sincere lunatic.
   2.2  Religious non-Mormon (NM) and anti-Mormon (AM)
interpretations (note I am not here implying that all NM are AM):  JS is
clearly a false prophet, since he disagrees with basic doctrines of ... (fill
in the correct denominational interpretation).  Therefore, it is an a
priori assumption that JS could not be a prophet; he must either be a
conscious fraud or a sincere lunatic.
   2.3  LDS interpretations:  The LDS accept JS as a true prophet.
However, a caveat should be mentioned.  Prophets, revelation, and
scripture are not inerrant or infallible according to the Mormon
tradition.  JS can make mistakes and still be a true prophet.  Revelation
is a combination of ideas from God, mixed with human reception and
perception.  Furthermore, not everything JS thought, said, or wrote
was a revelation.  He was entitled to his own opinions on subjects.

Note that both sides in this issue have a priori assumptions which
color their arguments.  One cannot say that only the LDS are biased in
these matters.  Furthermore, those rejecting JS must attempt to prove
their case based on the criteria of prophethood understood by the
Mormons, not as understood by the NM.  (We can of course debate the
different understandings of prophethood, but that is a separate issue
(currently under discussion).  My point here is that NM arguments will
only be convincing to the LDS if they can prove their point based on
criteria of prophethood which LDS accept.)

Now to the issues surrounding the BOA.

3.  There are three sets of interrelated issues involved in dealing with
the questions surrounding the origins and nature of the BOA.

3.1  THE PAPYRI AND THE KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN PAPERS.  The
issues in this area are:
   3.1.1  The nature, origin, and contents of the Joseph Smith Papyri (JS
pap.) fragments I to XI.
   3.1.2  The relationship of the fragments one to another.
   3.1.3  The nature, origin, and contents of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers
(KEP), which include, but are not limited to, the Egyptian Alphabet and
Grammar (EAG).
   3.1.4  The relationship between the JS pap. and the KEP.
   3.1.5  The relationship between the BOA and the KEP.
   3.1.6  Note that at no time did JS, or any other early LDS claim that
the KEP were a revelation from God; indeed, there is no evidence that
JS ever claimed the material was his at all. The KEP were never
published or presented to the world in any way as a revelation or
scripture.  All indications are that JS and/or the scribes were working
on their own, attempting to interpret the hieroglyphs based on their
own human understanding and methods, not by revelation.  (Nibley,
"Meaning of the KEP" BYU Studies, 11.4 (1971) pp. 350-399.  Important
new data is supplied by John Gee, "Review of Larson" in Review of
Books on the BOM, ed. Daniel C. Peterson, vol. 4 (1992), pp. 109-114,
available from FARMS, (address given below).  See also a summary of
the LDS arguments in FAQ on BOA by Willard Smith available by
email.)

3.2  THE FACSIMILES.  Joseph Smith (JS) gave interpretations of three
Egyptian ritual scenes, which are called the three facsimiles.  How do
JS's interpretations relate to modern Egyptological interpretations?
(From the Mormon perspective, the fundamental discussions include:

Facsimile 1:

Hugh W. Nibley. "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 5,
Facsimile No. 1, A Unique Document." Improvement Era 71
(September 1968): 66-80.
Continued: October 1968, pp. 73-81.

Hugh W. Nibley. "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 6,
Facsimile No. 1, A Unique Document." Improvement Era 71 (October
1968): 36-44.
Continued: December 1968, pp. 28-33.

Hugh W. Nibley. "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 8,
Facsimile No. 1, by the Figures." Improvement Era 2 (July 1969): 101-11.
Continued: August 1969, pp. 75-87,
September 1969, pp. 85-95,
October 1969, pp. 85-8.


Facsimile 2

Michael D. Rhodes, "A Translation and Commentary of the Joseph
Smith Hypocephalus,"  BYU Studies, 17 (Sp. 1977), 259-274.  This is a
complete translation and analysis of the hypocephalus.

Hugh W. Nibley. One Eternal Round (Hermetic Version). Provo, UT:
F.A.R.M.S.,1989.  (tapes of 12 lectures available from FARMS)  A
forthcoming book of this title will be the most complete study of the
facsimiles to date.

Hugh W. Nibley. "The Three Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham."
Provo, Utah: F.A.R.M.S., 1980.  (A working set of notes and ideas with
incomplete documentation)


Facsimile 3

Hugh W. Nibley, Abraham in Egypt.  Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981.

Hugh W. Nibley. "The Three Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham."
Provo, Utah: F.A.R.M.S., 1980.  (A working set of notes and ideas with
incomplete documentation)

William J. Hamblin

(to be continued)