Talk:Book of Abraham/Archive 1

message: I thought you may like to read the following as well on the theory i think you are trying to refer to:
:Our investigation has revealed two major points:
:1. Joseph Smith, when transcribing the hieratic words from the papyrus into the 'Alphabet and Grammar,' always dealt with complete morphemes. In no case did he copy a meaningless series of hieratic symbols by breaking a word other than at morpheme boundaries. Thus, for instance, when he transcribed a word composed of five hieratic symbols, he never made the mistake (statistically inevitable for anyone to whom the sign symbols are only a meaningless jumble of lines) of transcribing only three or four of the word's five signs, or of transcribing six or seven by including elements of the preceding or following words.
:Of 19 transcribed hieratic words, 16 were carried over by Joseph Smith into his transcription as complete words. The transcription of only three of the words involved breaking them in two, and the breaks were always made at valid morpheme boundaries. In two of these cases, the break was made between root-morphemes and their suffixes and/or ideographic determinatives. In only one case was such a break within an alphabetically written word, and this occurred at such a place that the two word-halves created by the break could be analyzed as two valid semantic elements. This first discovery implies that Joseph Smith's handling of the hieratic symbols was not haphazard: a person with no insight into the meaning of the symbols would have been bound to make a false division
:2. In every case the meaning of the hieratic word shows up in some relevant way in the juxtaposed verses from the Book of Abraham, whereas comparison of the hieratic with the preceding or following (rather than juxtaposed) English passages destroys the consistency of the parallels. Likewise, no significant parallels were found when the hieratic was compared in a similar way to other texts, such as the Book of Moses. Thus, the hieratic words seem to have a special relationship to the Book of Abraham and particularly to the verses with which they were connected by Joseph Smith.
:In a number of cases, the parallels are further amplified by a relationship not simply of the narrow meaning of the hieratic words, but also of the underlying religious background of the words to the content of the relevant English passages. Furthermore, in the case of numerous hieratic words, homophonous Hebrew words have been found which also have meanings which appear in relevant ways in the associated English verses - a fact which might be expected if the text had been adopted as a memory device by a group of Semitic people for a specific Hebrew secret oral tradition.
:This second discovery implies also that the author of the Book of Abraham had a significant insight into the meaning of the hieratic words of the Sen-Sen papyrus, and that the symbols on this papyrus have a definite relationship to the Book of Abraham verse with which Joseph Smith associated them.
From Mnemonic Device of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar & the Book of Abraham (Oct. 25, 1968), by John Tvedtnes.
The page you reference itself agrees that the relationship between symbol and corresponding text is troublesome, because so much text corresponds to a very compact symbol. The page tries to solve that "problem" by suggesting that the correspondance is not one of translation but of mnemonic. To me this makes little sense: if one "maps" onto the other, it's essentially translation. Since this problem seems to be acknowledged by all (I'm assuming you don't think the site you referred to is anti-Mormon) it seems it needs to be mentioned in the article. - Nunh-huh 23:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the degree/oral tradition theory

message: This paragraph doesn't make sense to me:
:To some, these arguments sound like special pleading, but most of those who study the Book of Abraham in detail understand the basis of the arguments.
The paragraph suggests some secret explanation of why these arguments are valid, but it doesn't provide that explanation.  Remove the paragraph, or write something which explains why special pleading is not valid here.
I never liked the paragraph either - i think the point was tying to be made that this forum cannot address the complexities of each of the theories. The paragraph has been removed. -Visorstuff 14:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  to study is to understand? what does this mean? 

message: I wanted to discuss the editing comment made by Visorstuff that the name Abraham is accepted as being found on the Egyptian papyri. I've never heard this before, and I wanted to verify it. I was aware that somebody found a lion altar scene similar to Facsimile 1 that contained the name Abraham. Is this what you are referring to? COGDEN 18:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:My apologies in my haste to edit. There are other known samples of texts with the Lion couch scene - both include the name Abraham on them or "I, Abraham" - the quote is "Abraham who upon..." and the remainder is missing in the one, but the other alludes to "the couch." See Janet H. Johnson, “The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden (1975).” The corresponding portion in the Smith papyrus is destroyed. Interesting coincidence if you believe God wants us to know by faith that the Book of Abraham is true. -Visorstuff 23:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinguished scholar Janet H. Johnson, Professor of Near Eastern Languages at the University of Chicago, was author of an article on a papyrus at Leiden, accessioned as "Leiden I 384". In her article "The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384," published in the series Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden volume 56 (1975), pp 29-64.  Prof. Johnson most certainly did not find "Abraham" anywhere in the Egyptian papyri she described. --Wetman 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the correction to my citation - I left off the I 384 and series name by mistake. Look at column XIII line 6 - beneath the drawing are the greek words Abraham who upon..." and again in column VIII line 16 we find the name again. Nevertheless you can fine it here as well: Griffith and Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, col. VIII line 8. There are additional references as well, but these third century ones will suffice for this article. One thing is for sure - that is egyptians were facinated with cows/bulls, abraham and stars, among other things. -Visorstuff 02:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: F. L. Griffith and Herbert Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden (1904) was reprinted by Dover, as The Leyden Papyrus, 1974. In its 1904 preface the editors noted "The influence of purely Greek mythology also is here by comparison very slight—hardly greater than that of the Alexandrian Judaism which has supplied a number of names of Hellenistic form to the demotic magician." Indeed, in the on-line excerpts at SacredTexts.com,  the translation of col. VIII.8 reads "(8) inquire here to-day. Come in Piatoou, Khitore; ho! Shop, Shope, Shop, Abraham, the apple (?) of the Eye of the Uzat,"  1. The papyrus itself has nothing to do with either historical Abraham nor Abraham of Genesis save the conjuring use of the name. 2. The represented "translation" of the Book of Abraham does not translate this papyrus. Are not those are the two facts behind all the mystification? --Wetman 21:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Not sure I understand your point #2. Can you explain in more detail before I respond? All that was said is that a simlar text is found in the surviving "book of abraham" papyrus the LDS Church owns. Most of what smith had was destroyed. The quote is in a section about apologetic responses - and is relative to their study. Of course the two translations wouldn't match up as they are not the same documents, and Smith claimed to recieve the Book of Abraham by revelation. And of course apologists look for any parallel/similarity. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are trying to say - can you clarify? Incidentally, Uzat means healer, messiah, medicine/miracle worker/doctor, savior, right? Interesting Hellenistic-Christian-Judaic parallel. Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 23:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham's name on the papyri? 

message: Ah! Good catch, Visorstuff! In trying to provide a better introduction for the paragraph dealing with the Facsimiles, I completely forgot about the second artist. Thanks for adding that. KevinM 21:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facsimiles 

message: The lack of objectivity in this article regarding the prejudice against Blacks should not be tolerated.
I placed the scriptural references relating to the prejudice in the article. I will not allow it to be taken down. This article so far seems to be a whitewashing and doctoring up of Mormonism, little better than a propaganda article.
I hope Wikipedia is not catering to the Mormon lobby that seeks to erase the ignorance and prejudice that is part of the foundation of the Mormon religion.
Oh and Haws, you didn't step into a minefield. I have studied this matter extensively and all of the explanation that you read above that seems, and i stress, SEEMS, to be good solid research is not. What happens is, in many aspects of linguistic theory, you can take a variety of random events and find a pattern. However, that does not mean there is a legitimate pattern. With Joseph Smith, he had used a method of relating Hebrew words into his scriptures, and relying on the King James translation of the Bible to support his legitimacy. Much of what you see, is a "King James"ing of his writing, which obviously will contribute to finding a pattern, even one that looks legitimate. I will be more than happy to elaborate.
And please be aware, this article will eventually get a POV warning as the scholarly research that does not "agree" with Mormon apologists is considered anti-mormon. There is a REASON that some scholars are anti-mormon, and that reason is this: Mormon apology is rife with false research and obscurities. There is far too much pseudo-research in Mormon study and that offends many scholars. The religious conclusions especially in regards to race and women have done a lot of damage, and the misinformation is still causing waste. So yes, I would conclude that anyone that disagrees with Mormon scholars would be "anti-mormon" just like people that disagree with NAZI philosophy is "anti-Nazi", but that doesn't mean the "anti" is not credible.
:Wikipedia is not a soapbox to prove a point. Nor should you threaten other editors as you have above, resulting in an potential Edit war. These edits are more appropriate for Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and not all Mormonism-related churches who believe in the Book of Abraham interpreted these passages the same way as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would encourage you to move many of your thoughts there. Most of us are familiar with your theories, both the Mormon and Non-Mormon editors on this page, and have settled on a factual, non emotional and accurate portrayal of the book of abraham. As for your lat comment, unfortunately, not a lot of non-LDS scholars have addressed this topic. I can only think of three out side of teh latter day saint movement - can you point to others? Charles Larson - was in the movement, whom you seem to believe. 
We invite you to become a part of the WP:LDS if you have expertise in the Latter Day Saint movement, and to be a part of Wikipedia. You can sign your posts by signing with three tildes ~~~~. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 13:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black people 

message: I did a wholesale revert and then added back in material that I reverted - as the earlier version flowed better, and was more accurate. if the User:149.166.233.32 would like to discuss what was not accurate in his edit, please bring up the discussion here. -Visorstuff 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back again - agree it may need more analysis and criticism, but it needs to be accurate. That was not accurate. I also fixed inaccuate quotations. If you have problems discuss here first. -Visorstuff 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On the contrary. You have no history of contributing on Wikipedia, and are making claims, which I've outlined below are incorrect. Dates, places, and items are completely wrong. You are not sourcing anything, and seem to have a bone to pick. I don't care if it reflects positively on Smith or the Latter Day Saint movement, but I do care if it is correct. Your edits would be peer reviewed out of existence in a scholarly forum. If you can provide sources, please do. The fact is that most non-Mormon scholars and academcians do not study the papyrus, nor have they. So state most scholars say this, is a misnomer, as they arent' out there. If you can add in "numerous" references of scholars citing contrary, please do. But I think you'll only find a handful, some which are not qualified to make such claims. Even the Tanners don't attack the BOA in this way. They've taken a wait-and-see approach. 
And even your "translation" removal is incorrect, as shown below. I hope you do stay on wikipedia, but you are going to have to start showing sources and not opinion. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research or opinions (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale revert and adding back in from the pre-revert

message: Hi Wikipac. I'm in favor of a balanced article, however, I am also in favor of an accurate article. 
Let's take the edits one by one:
The use of the word "purported" or purporting - 
the original publication of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons read as follows: "A Translation of some Ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt" From a earlier version of the history of the church it reads: "a translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The purported writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus" (See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351). Someone early understood that they were purporting or purported texts and tried to reflect that in the printing. As smith oversaw it, we can guess it was him, but cannot be sure. So, the "neutral" edit is factually incorrect. 
Second the revised edit states- "Upon their release, Egyptologists quickly identified the bulk of the Joseph Smith Papyri as portions of a 1st Century A.D. Book of Breathings" I am interested in what Egyptologists paid attention to this find. In fact, it wasn't of interest to most egyptologists - those who were non-affilated with a relious center of study (ie were not employed by a church) - rather described it some funerary texts and some texts describing farming in near the Nile. It was a Mormon scholar who pointed to the document being a portion of the book of breathings (Nibley) not a non-Mormon scholar. 
Next you removed teh following. I'm not sure why. "This identification of texts is often used by scholars as evidence against the book's authenticity. The Book of Breathings should not be confused with a similar book, the Book of Gates. Another section of the papyrus deals with farm life near the Nile. Though not all of the papyrus Joseph Smith possessed was recovered, the Book of Breathings itself exists in many more complete papyri."
Each statement here is important. First, the claim that this is used to dispute the BOA's authenticity. Why did you remove this? Do you think it proves it?
Second, "The Book of Breathings should not be confused with a similar book, the Book of Gates." Many Mormon amateur historians come across the book of Gates, and confuse it with the book of breathings. Particularly, because of its simliarities to the Mormon endowment. After death, according the the book of gates and the mormon endowment, the deceased has to share certain key words or pass certain tests at each gate in order to progress. The Book of Breathings, has similar instructions, but amatuer LDS apologists point to the book of gates as the book of breathings and say this proves the book of abraham, as the BOA has so much "temple" stuff in it. I think this should be left in. 
Next, "another section of the papyrus deals with farm life near the Nile." This is the section that has the serpent that some have speculated is the Serpent legend Smith referred to in his Egyptian grammar. Again, it is significant, as it was not religious-based at all. 
Finally you removed: "Though not all of the papyrus Joseph Smith possessed was recovered, the Book of Breathings itself exists in many more complete papyri." I could care less if this stayed. Probably a good deletion. 
Next you added "There was no obvious connection between the newly discovered fragments and the biblical Abraham." That is fine. 
Next, you wrote: "Mormon apologists have developed a number of theories in defense of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. The most popular theories argue the following:" - Apologists don't develop therioes, they suggest them. Academicians and scholars develop them. I don't know of any apologist who actively do their own research to develop theoreies. Just my opinion. I'm fine either way.
You removed: "The missing sections of the papyri are large and could have contained the text Joseph Smith based the Book of Abraham on" - curious as to why? This is a very popular theory and is very well supported based on smiths descriptions of the different colored-text on the papyrus versus what we have today. This seems strange that a serious editor or scholar would delete this. Please explain. 
You added in the following: "contrary to his own account of the origin of the book of Abraham, may have" Can you point to a source where smith describes the tranlsation process as word for word? please cite the descrepacny. 
I'm fine with the addition: "Critics, however, point out that the recovered papyri bear no direct connection, either historical or textual, to Abraham. In addition to this, the main arguments against the Book of Abraham’s authenticity are:"
You removed the similarities of the abraham account and the Book of Jasher. Curious as to why? This is a good guess by smith or at least a coincidence? An earlier version shows more simliarites between Jasher and the BOA abraham that is different than what you call the "biblical abraham." 
Also, aside from "ur of the chaldees," what are other examples of "Numerous anachronisms?" Please provide a source and examples. 
You wrote: Joseph Smith’s translation of facsimiles, which are included in the Book of Abraham, do not bear any similarity to modern Egyptologist’s understanding of these figures. A conference held in the late 1800s stated that one of the similar hypocephali that are available was an astrological document - discussing the relationship between earth and other heavenly bodies. Smith's discussed the relationshipe between earth and Kolob and other stars. I'll have to pull the exact source, but you can listen to Nibley discuss the paper presented at the conference at http://speeches.byu.edu. (I think it is Critical Opinion of the Pearl of Great Price, but I'll have to verify at another time). 
The other two bullets' I think are written POV, but I'm fine with. 
But the last which reads "The Joseph Smith Papyri have been determined to be from after 500 B.C., which is at least 1000 years after Abraham’s lifetime. This fact contradicts the introduction to the Book of Abraham, which states that the book represents “The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus” (see History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351)."
Again this is factually incorrect. The papyrus is a second century document - not 500 B.C. Second, you've used an printing error already discussed above - the times and seasons (and incidentally, my copy of the history of the church) use the word "purportedly." The copy at the beginning of the current standard works does not use the word. I've been unable to verifify if it is a printing error, or if it was done on purpose, as it was discussed not long after in the church's publication, the Ensign. Third, all this statement means is that Abraham wrote an account on Papyrus. This particular verion could be a copy. Using this logic, you have to discount the ealiest copy (appearing 300-500 AD) Colosians, Ephesians, Thessalonians 2, Timothy 1&2 and Titus for example,  all self-claim to be authored by him, as he says they were "written" by his own hand, but now ""At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter" (or the other referece ). He wasn't alive between 300-500 AD, but that is when the earliest copies are dated to. The claim you make does not make sense to any serious scholar. 
Finally, there is evidence that smith was familiar with the Rosetta stone, especially if he ever read the newspaper. As he was an editor during the time of translation of the BOA, he would have. Richard Bushman makes the argument, that he tried to line up his "revealed" translation with a word-for-word and could not. He writes: "His willingness to engage a Hebrew teacher is some indication Joseph recognized that the word "translation" for his dictation of the Book of Mormon was a misnomer. He knew his mode of translating was different from the scholars’. He wanted Seixas to teach him the other way. I interpret the Egyptian Grammar as a failed attempt to bring the two processes together, that is, to learn Egyptian while he was translating by inspiration."
Next you wrote: "Rosetta Stone, a large granite tablet which contained a message written in two languages, Egyptian and Greek." This is incorrect. There were three languages - Hieroglyphic, Demotic Egyptian and Greek. The translation from greek to Demotic were completed in 1814 by Thomas Young, and bulk of the heiroglyphic translation were done by the late 1820s, though never fully completed. 
Next, you wrote "However, because this knowledge wasn’t well disseminated to the United States at the time Joseph Smith made his translation, his text couldn’t be checked by scholars for accuracy." This is wrong on two fronts. First, Chandler certified that what Smith told him of the mummies was in fact, the same as what other egyptologists did. 
:In 1828, a French explorer named Antonio Sebolo, secured permission from Mehemit Ali, the viceroy of Egypt to explore for antiquities. Three years later, in 1831 he brought the mummies with the BOA papyrus to france where they were studied and he died. He left them and the "results" of the study in paris (presumably, in Paris, they knew about Champollian's work?) to his nephew in Philidelphia - Michael H. Chandler. They were delivered to him shortly. He studied what was done with them, and the translations based on "the best scholarship" and in 1835, went on tour with them in the US. His display consisted of 11 mummies (four of which the church purchased) and was considered one of the most accurate displays. He was told to search of Smith, as he had a working knowledge of ancient languages. In July 1835, Chandler reached Kirtland with the mummies and found Smith. 
:According to the History of the church, "There were four human figures ...together with . . . hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:
:"`This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that could ever learn, or meet with, I find that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. Signed Michael H. Chandler, Traveling with and proprietor of Egyptian mummies.'" (dated July 6, 1835.)-Text found in History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.235. 
Second, as discussed above, the Rosetta Stone was well-known - it was monumental and many saw it as a way to "prove" the bible true. Charles Anthon had a copy of the greek/demotic translations by the time Martin Harris came to him with the BOM charactors. Francis Kirkham in "A New Witness for Christ in America" writes that the 1814 translation (from demotic) was available in america by 1816 at the latest. Of the various translations, here are they are:
1802 - a partial by Akerblad. 
1814 - Young 
1818 - Young with his "alphabet"
1822 - Champollion's "alphabet"
1824 - Champollion's Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique 
1826 - Hieroglyphics available in English
1829 - Book of Mormon charachters shown to Anthon, who confirms they are of ancient source 
1830 - BOM printed
1842 - Book of Abraham printed in the Times and Seasons
With this timeline, it is ludicrious to think that Smith had no knowledge of the Champollion's work, but was rather, trying to do something similar. There was an 18 year difference, and Smith was very up-to-date on scientific discoveries, incluing the new field of meso-american archeology, and egyptology. He seemed to cared little from Greek and latin, but studied them in addition to hebrew, german and similar discoveries. There fore, youre edit is either very oversimplified (discounts evidence to the contrary, or draws conclusion where there ought not to be one) or is factually incorrect. 
I will not revert/make edits until your response or Wednesday. Strive for accuracy, not opinion. I hope I've provided enough sources, but if you want more, let me know. I expect the same from you. -Visorstuff 17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why edits are incorrect

message: Let me address piece by piece what you did address of my concerns. 
First, i've repeately stted, that I'm in favor of criticism for the article, but it needs to be accurate. Unless you want to say, here "are common perceptions that are not academically sound." 
I'm very familiar with Klaus Baer, and both Larsons works on the matter. I've read portions of the others. Incidentally, for Steven E Thompson to be sourced, it seems like he should have more than 13 google  hits when you search his name. Even I have more than that. However, it has been suggested, and I have not confirmed that he is part of the Mormonism movement. Whether pro or anti, I don't know, but he is not outside of the Mormonism movement. 
Klaus Baer would be a good source to use in the article. He is a well-respected and widely-published author. In Nibley's biography, you can read from a letter from Klaus Baer to the Tanners that Nibley's "articles in [the Improvement Era on the Book of Abraham] hit very close to home if you know something about the field." . He pubished in Mormon forums on the topic. He even wrote that the "only" argument that "will get the Mormons out of the dilemma,"--that it is not the Egyptian text but the English one that can provide evidence for its authenticity. . He also makes the assertion that Smith knew what he was translating much moreso than critics (and your edits) give him credit for: "Professor Klaus Baer begins and ends his exceedingly valuable study with the assertion that Joseph Smith thought he was actually translating the so-called "Breathing Permit." (Improvement Era, January 1969). Please cite passages from him. 
#1 You write: 
:The use of purported: As you acknowledge, "purported" is NOT used in the standard works, which is the CANNONIZED version of this statement. To imply that this represents a "printing error" defies credulity. Leave it out.
Why leave out the primary source? Why are you afraid of using a historical document? A primary source? Lets leave in the original. I've already mentioned that the use of the word purportedly is similar in both examples under smith's watch and changed later. One would side with the original source, wouldn't they? It is relevant and needs to be included, as both pro and anti use the word in their theories. 
#2You wrote:
:The Egyptologists who paid attention to the find: There was nothing in my statement that implied only Non-Mormon Egytologists were involved in this. But egyptologists certainly were interested, for example Klaus Baer, Richard A. Parker, and John A. Wilson. But I don't really care either way.
My edit stated: "Mormon Egyptologists have generally concluded that some of the remaining papyrus fragments comprise portions of a 1st Century A.D. Book of Breathings..."  You changed it to read "Upon their release, Egyptologists quickly identified the bulk of the Joseph Smith Papyri as portions of a 1st Century A.D. Book of Breathings..." The edit implies that in general, the whole field identified the papyrus as false. It was Nibley who identified it. It was VERY implied. 
Parker is the one who supplied the translation (which other versions are typically used by anti-mormons) of some of the papyrus. He did it as a favor to Nibley for the improvement era , and was not terribly interested in it. Am curious if you have more works by him? Maybe I'm missing the research? Wilson is another friend of Nibleys who he went to for a translation. His is not well-referenced. But again, did not publish on the topic, aside from with Nibley's pushing. I'm not seeing the vast amount of non-LDS egyptologist interest you are referencing. I'm suprised you didn't use DeeJay Nelson (another discussion for another time). Nibley was very aware of his limitation, which is why he brought in these others. Larson on the other hand, who does not know egyptian, and is no egyptologist, who you reference, apparently thinks he is smarter than nibley and takes care to attempt to translate portions in his latest work. 
#3. Umm, okay? How is this a strawman?
#4 It should be added back in.
#5 My apologies. I missed the moving, and only saw the delete. 
#6. You seem to don't know what you don't know here. The Book of Breathings title is a misnomer. It was very highly individualized. A comparison title would be something like - we translated the "book of remembrance" that accompanied his families genealogical record. Not all "book of remembreances" are the same - in the same way, not all book of teh breathings are the same. Some are very similar (as are hypocephali - which we will get to in a minute) but no two are supposed to be the same. I think its fine to leave it in as a criticsm, but it shows a lack of understanding on the topic. Kinda funny and simplified to someone who has studied it. 
#7 okay
#8 Most current scholarship agrees with this. To me, it has moved past the realm of theory, not a fact yet, but much closer than a common supposition. In 35. Zondhoven, Annual Egyptological Bibliography 1977, 180-81. A non-LDS egyptologist writes "the Pap. Joseph Smith XI and X containing the Book of Breathings were wrongly identified by others with Joseph Smith's book of Abraham." I believe Larson addresses this under his treatment of the "Missing Black and Red Scroll" Theory (pp. 129-34) in his book. He seems to be the only source that refutes this theory. Even Baer, Parker and Wilson are undecided on the topic. I wasn't personally attacking you - I'm sorry you feel that way, I just was thinking of interviews with the above. They woulnd't delete it, and I'm suprised you have taken larson's work as factually as you have. 
9) Translation. SMith considered translating a branch of his calling. The Book of Moses (and excerpt from the JST and portions of the D&C are "translations" that took place without any ancient documents. We are unsure of Smith's meaning of the word translation. Obviously, he considered "revelations" could be translations. (as per the example of the first few chapters of the JST which are in the Pearl of Great Price as the book of Moses. We do NOT know, however, the process, or if it was a word-for-word translation. To assume any more than this is over-simplifiying and not looking at evidence. It seems strange. You seem to think taht everything that is "Cannonized" is perfect. There are still errors, printing and otherwise, in the canon of the LDS church. Someday it will be removed. Even in the bible, there are changes that have been made. This is beside the point. And thank-you for providing sources in your response to this and items 11 & 12. 
#10 Feel free to add back in the Jasher stuff in a more appropriate place. I thought it actually supaported your point. Both are relevant. 
#11 Numerous anachronisms = four? Why not just say four? Numerous implies more than 10 to me. If thomson knows of more, I'm curious of why he doesnt name them in the text you reference. Seems odd for a "scholar" not to be overly wordy. 
#12. You need to go back and read my comments about this above. Perhaps you miss my point. 
As for your "restoring texts" some have suggested that those pieces were undamaged until the Nauvoo period, but were intact. According to primary sources, including history of the church, the papyrus was remarkably preserved. second, losing a jackal head with a bald head (which larson cites, and you apparently are referring to) is actually an evidence for. for smith to know it was a priest (hence the jackal head on annubias' priest) was a pretty darn good guess. but this is not relevant to the argument at hand. As for the phallic images, I'd like to see another specimen or another papyrus (as opposed to a temple wall) where the figure on the lion couch is ithyphallic. It cannot be done. It does not exist. In fact, the other similar docuemnts do not show this. It is specific to Larsons "research." Second, most recent egyptologists do not think that the figure is Osiris. But that is a discussion for another time. 
Klaus Baer said "Facs[imile] No. 3 is not a judgment scene and exact parallels may be hard to find." Much the same might be said of the other facsimiles. 
However, Larson, who has no formal egyptology training, disagrees with Baer, who is respected. 
Larson never deals with what occurs on the Egyptian papyri we have. He never discusses what they do say. He only attacks what smith did and says it is wrong. What did the texts mean to the Egyptians? "His only attempt at indicating what any of the papyri mean is an explanation of Joseph Smith Papyrus I (p. 102). But the explanation not only matches no Egyptian text;23 it makes no sense. How can grandchildren be present at their father's conception? Can Larson produce any Egyptian text where the Egyptians make this mistake?"
"But whereas Larson's philological errors are hidden, his errors in restorations of ancient texts are quite manifest. Not only is his restoration of Joseph Smith Papyrus I obscene, it is impossible (pp. 64-65, 102). Larson provides what he claims to be a "professional reconstruction" (pp. 62-65), contrasting it with Joseph Smith's reconstruction of missing portions of the papyri, of which he is extremely critical. To restore a lacuna without the aid of revelation, however, careful comparison to parallel texts must be done in order to show that the restorations are even possible...While Larson has noted that there are some characters above the figures, he has misunderstood the implications. The characters are in vertical columns marked by vertical lines to either side of the text, a practice reserved for cases where there is more than one column of text. Given at least two columns of text, there is no room for the bird hovering over the figure. A hand is the only reasonable restoration. Besides, the artist has already demonstrated how he draws the end of a bird's wing, and it is not in separate strokes.25 Thus the restoration Larson mocks (pp. 155-56) is possible, whereas his own is not."
Larson and Nelson's criticisms of the facsimiles are not credible. Baer's is. Cite him. 
#13 just another proof of sloppiness and non-documentation. No attack meant, just clean it up. 
#14 My point is that it was well-disseminated by 1842. Twenty years of research - perhaps some didn't know, but anyone who was a scholar, or was familiar with current events would have known. 
#15 - I responded to this in the section prior to my long "why they are wrong" discussion. Go back and read. 
#16 I can agree that more criticisms need to be added in, bu5t they need to be more recent than ten years ago, or 1912, which have been rebuffed and shown to be incorrect by scholars. Give some recent criticism, like those in some of the recent joseph smith conferences that actually have meet, or state, "these are out of date arguments popular on the internet and in the 1980s, and are not supported by current research or scholarship" If you want to qualify them, that is fine, but I can add in better and more recent and trustworthy criticism if you'd like, but what you have added that i've discussed doestn' cut it. Its like adding in three nephite legends or other mormon folklore (or anti-Mormon folklore) as factual. Cite and type.
Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response