Decrypting the Mormon Book of Abraham
Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith allegedly translated the adventures of Abraham in Egypt.
Filed under Ancient Mysteries
| Skeptoid #168 August 25, 2009 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Today we're going to point our skeptical eye at one of the supposedly ancient scriptures of the Mormon Church, the Book of Abraham. In 1835 the Church came into possession of some Egyptian papyri, said to have been translated with divine guidance by their prophet, Joseph Smith. Smith reported that the papyri were "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." In the book, Jehovah reveals to Abraham the nature of the universe and the order of all things, in a personal conversation, including knowledge of the planet Kolob, which is close to where God lives.
Sometime in the early 1800's, an antiquities dealer named Antonio Lebolo returned from Egypt with eleven mummies and other artifacts, including papyri, from the region around Thebes. Upon his death, the collection was sold at auction, and ended up in an exhibition that traveled the United States, which sold the artifacts off as it went. In 1835 this exhibition reached Kirtland, Ohio, the headquarters of the Latter-Day Saints. The exhibition's proprietor at the time was a Michael Chandler, who was well aware that the church had been founded upon Joseph Smith's claimed translation of gold plates written in Egyptian, which became the Book of Mormon. Chandler gave Joseph Smith a viewing of the collection, which by that time had been reduced to four mummies and a few rolls of papyri containing hieroglyphics, and Smith gave Chandler a cursory translation of some of the papyri.
|
Shortly thereafter, two church elders, Joseph Coe and Simeon Andrews, purchased the entire collection from Chandler for $2,400, about $60,000 in today's dollars. Smith then took the papyri into seclusion to translate them. At his side were Oliver Cowdery and William Phelps who transcribed. The product of their labors is the Book of Abraham. It's not very long; five short chapters, less than six thousand words. The book includes three Egyptian-looking illustrations done by Reuben Hedlock, a professional engraver who copied them from the actual papyri. The Book of Abraham, with its illustrations, is now included in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the Mormon church's five books of scripture.
Upon Joseph Smith's assassination in 1844, the artifacts were passed to his mother, and then to his widow, who sold them to a collector by the name of Abel Combs. Combs broke up the collection, and about half the artifacts went to the Wood Museum in Chicago, where they were subsequently lost in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The whereabouts of Joseph Smith's papyri remained a mystery for nearly a century, until a scholar named Dr. Aziz Atiya from the University of Utah happened upon them in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art's archives in 1966, recognizing them by one of the illustrations that he knew from the Pearl of Great Price. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the Metropolitan had purchased them in 1908 from the daughter of Abel Combs' housekeeper, including an affidavit from Smith's widow. All of Smith's original papyri had been fragmentary, and these ten pieces probably made up some one-third to one-half of his original collection. The Church bought the papyri from the Metropolitan and brought them back to the Salt Lake City headquarters, where one additional fragment was discovered in the Church's own archives; bringing the total count of Joseph Smith's original papyri that survive today to eleven.
Having the original documents available made it possible for Egyptologists to examine and properly translate them, to see whether they do indeed match what Smith, Cowdery, and Phelps came up with. If they were indeed divinely inspired with translating abilities, you'd think that would be the case. Let's find out.
This is a good time to introduce Thomas Stuart Ferguson, an attorney, amateur archaeologist, author, and Latter Day Saint. Ferguson's lifelong passion was finding archaeological evidence from Mesoamerica that confirmed the Book of Mormon stories. His book One Fold and One Shepherd is considered one of the seminal works on the subject. It was Ferguson who first approached Brigham Young University and persuaded them to create a Department of Archaeology. He founded the New World Archaeological Foundation to bankroll expeditions to Mesoamerica, and even got the Church itself to become a major sponsor of his work.
So imagine Ferguson's excitement at the opportunity to provide a real live black-and-white proof of Joseph Smith's divine inspiration, and an actual historical document, thousands of years old, telling the Book of Mormon stories. Ferguson obtained photographs of the eleven papyrus fragments and sent them to Klaus Baer, a professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, and to an unaccredited amateur, D.J. Nelson. He also sent copies to a pair of Egyptologists at U.C. Berkeley, Professor Henry Lutz and Leonard H. Lesko, but provided no information about their origin or anything that might link them to the Book of Abraham. All four men quickly came back with the exact same proper identification of the documents.
They were examples of what's called a hypocephalus, meaning "below the head". This is a round papyrus or other inscribed object placed under the head of a deceased person for burial. No two are the same. They are inscribed with a traditional funerary text, often from The Book of the Dead, and this particular one was The Breathing Permit of Hor. The papyri were merely unremarkable burial trappings, quite likely from Antonio Lebolo's original mummies. They had nothing remotely to do with Abraham, the planet Kolob, or anything else found in Joseph Smith's translation. Moreover, numerous Egyptologists since have examined the widely published photographs, and identified in detail everything found in the illustrations. Again, Smith's own callouts and identifications bear no resemblance to the actual contents. Ferguson said "I must conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics."
The Church has defended Smith's claim against the findings of academia. Hugh Nibley, a late professor of Mormon scripture at Brigham Young University, was the Church's primary apologist for many years. Nibley's main defense was that the papyrus fragments recovered from the Metropolitan did not happen to be the same ones in which Smith found the Book of Abraham, and thus the different translations; after all, perhaps as much as two-thirds of the original papyri have never been recovered. Ferguson scoffed at this suggestion, pointing out that all three of Reuben Hedlock's illustrations exactly match those in the existing papyri.
Smith, Cowdery, and Phelps had also written the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar, purportedly a guide for understanding the heiroglyphs in the documents they translated, which has remained in the Church's possession. It makes clear references to the heiroglyphs and their positions on the pages, unambiguously referring to the existing papyri. They are clear, additional evidence that the existing papyri are the ones claimed to contain the Book of Abraham. Nibley dismissed the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar as "of no practical value whatever and never employed in any translation." I have to agree with Nibley here: They certainly do not seem to be of any practical value, but that says nothing about the finding that they do reference the existing papyri.
The papyri have been dated to the first century BC, about 1500 years after Abraham is claimed to have lived, which makes it difficult to reconcile Smith's statement that they were written by Abraham's own hand. Hugh Nibley came to the Church's rescue again, stating that it's common to refer to a book as having been written by someone without literally meaning that that exact volume was created by a pen held in that person's own hand. The Church itself goes even farther, stating that "Joseph Smith never claimed that the papyri were autographic (written by Abraham himself)", implying that there's still a loophole for Smith's claims to be true.
But this is a tenuous position to which to cling. Joseph Smith's introduction to the Book of Abraham reads:
The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.
Joseph Smith also showed a papyrus to Charles Adams, the son of John Quincy Adams, who reported that Smith told him:
This...was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so. If anyone denies it, let him prove the contrary. I say it.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, Joseph Smith maintained that his papyri were literally written by Abraham's own hand, and that they told Abraham's story. Both are, beyond any reasonable doubt, untrue.
It's not possible to get inside the heads of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and William Phelps, so we can't really know what their honest intentions were. The most cynical analysis concludes that the Book of Abraham's authorship was a fully deliberate fraud, where all three men knowingly conspired to contrive a Bible-style book to add to their doctrine, claiming the papyri as the source when they well knew that it probably had nothing to do with the story they invented. A more charitable version of events has Smith honestly believing he was divinely inspired to translate the papyri, reeling off the tale as it came to him, with Cowdery and Phelps sincere in their faith and transcribing Smith to the best of their ability. Maybe Smith alone knew he couldn't read the papyri and was making up the story, and hoaxed Cowdery and Phelps. All we can say for sure is that its source is absolutely not what the Church claims it is.
The Church says that the significance of the Book of Abraham is that it is "evidence of the inspired calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith." I can find no rational argument that supports this. It is merely evidence that the talents of Smith, Cowdery, and Phelps, combined with any divine inspiration any of them may have had, were insufficient to translate a document that is a trivial task for any knowledgeable Egyptologist. Honest Mormons should have grave concerns over the Church's continued promotion of a claim proven to be false. It's time for Mormons with intellectual integrity to demand the Book of Abraham be reclassified as not of any divine inspiration, and its authorship properly assigned to Smith, Cowdery, and Phelps, with whatever status the Church likes that does not endorse the bogus translation.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2009 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Adams, C. F. Diary of Charles Francis Adams. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1844.
Larson, Charles M. By his own hand upon papyrus: A new look at the Joseph Smith papyri. Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 1992.
LDS Church. "The Book of Abraham." Institutes of Religion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 12 Jan. 2010. <http://institute.lds.org/manuals/pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/pgp-3-a.asp>
Parker, R. "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri - Translations and Interpretations." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 1 Jul. 1968, Volume 3, Number 2: 86.
Ritner, Robert K. ""The Breathing Permit of Hôr" Among The Joseph Smith Papyri." Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 1 Jan. 2003, Volume 62, Number 3: 161-180.
Webb, R. C. Joseph Smith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as a Translator. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. 3-18.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Decrypting the Mormon Book of Abraham." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
25 Aug 2009. Web.
6 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4168>
Discuss!
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
I had to chuckle when I heard that the when the heiroglyhics got in the hands of real Egyptologists that they were to be found as funerary texts.
I think it's pretty logical to conclude that if Joseph Smith claimed to have found golden tablets which he "translated", into the Mormmon Bible, than he was pretty good at fabricating the papyrus into The Book of Abraham.
Robert Clary, Tillsonburg Ontario Canada
August 25, 2009 11:23am
The adherents of other religions should count themselves lucky that no autographs exist of their founding texts. A biblical literalist would probably not like to compare their KJV to an autograph of Mark's Gospel.
Craig, Washington DC
August 25, 2009 11:52am
As a former Mormon, I found your analysis dead on, Brian. The Book of Abraham was one of the main components for my losing faith in the LDS church. I know many others who have likewise seen the "translation" for what it is, a fraud or at best an attempt. I doubt the church will ever concede that the BofA is anything but scripture, regardless of the pressures. The apologists simply regurgitate the same ole tired arguments from Nibley, and the church clings to them. Again, well done, Brian, on picking up the Ferguson and Nibley references.
Tony, Farmington, NM
August 25, 2009 12:33pm
I think the LDS Church will eventually have to face the fact that the BOA is not what they thought it was sooner or later. It will just take time and pressure from inside the faith before it happens and that will take decades. Like all major changes in the LDS faith this will happen as more members become educated about their own history and voice their opinions openly.
Jay, Tennessee
August 25, 2009 2:25pm
The most egregious thing about the reproductions printed in the Pearl of Great price is the labels assigned by Joseph Smith. The seated figure sporting an enormous erection is labeled as "Elohim", or God himself.
Thomas, Reno, NV
August 25, 2009 4:10pm
What is "egregious" with God having an erection? Please explain.
Brad Hall, Tokyo
August 25, 2009 5:50pm
Brian, is it fair game to take on religion?
I don't believe anything but I certainly maintain the position that if you are insecure enough about life, a religion may help along the way. Just don't bother me in the process.
I consider all religions in the same light.. But is it bagging pseudoscience or are you just having a lend on people who have too much time and money.
Had you wanted to be relevant, wouldnt it have been more fruitfull to bash the Abrahamic legend and get about 3 billion world citizens at once?
Stick to the health frauds and martians... Maybe even really dump on your USA TV programming. From what I see, there is so much bogus promotion it is on a par with Australian morning TV.
Wouldn't it be just so very cool if the skeptoiders could come up with their own ridiculous conspiracy and disseminate it into a gullible community..
Actually... Thats where you started this week..apologies
Henk van der Gaast, Sydney, Ausralia
August 25, 2009 7:15pm
All religions are outright frauds and scams.
Michael Gray, Adelaide, Australia
August 26, 2009 1:50am
I kind of think the time to debunk Mormon doctrine was back in the 1850s and 1860s, just as the time to debunk Muhammad would have been during his lifetime. It's far too late by now. Let's concentrate on Scientologists and Raelian before they gain institutional respectability.
Cambias, Massachusetts
August 26, 2009 5:37am
Henk, religions don't get a free pass because they offer comfort to the insecure. The same could be said for belief in a lot of pseudoscience topics. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorant.
Going after LDS or Scientology or Rael are easier because they are more recent phenomena. I'm sure you could make all sorts of skeptical points about the Abrahamic myth but it happened thousands of years ago. You could set out a detailed, cogent argument and believers would say "how do you know what went on 4000 years ago?"
These other nutbar religions are easier because we KNOW that Joseph Smith and L Ron and Rael are actual people and we have actual provable records of their lives and work. We have concrete timelines of the entire course of these religions. It's like shooting ducks in a barrel.
H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
August 26, 2009 6:20am
Cambias says its "far too late to debunk mormonism"
Better late than never: this obnoxious, prideful, expansionist enterprise was founded by deceitful men, and continued by same.
This isn't a church at all, as proven by its corporate holdings: Beneficial Finance, Deseret Cattle Ranch (Orlando), 2 billion-dollar shopping mall (Salt Lake City), etc. It's a financial holding company, hiding behind a facade of "religion" and employing the idiotic drivel of an unemployable womanizer as its "doctrine."
Yes, indeed, lets debunk this scam ...
Carpenter, Massachusetts
August 26, 2009 8:00am
What fun! It's rare that scientists have so much evidence to work from when investigating religious claims.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not fail in entertaining me.
Joseph Smith III, Dallas
August 26, 2009 8:16am
What's funny to me is hearing a number of christians comment about how weird mormanisim is. These are people who believe the whole walking on water, parting the red sea, virgin birth, etc as being concretetly true. No weird beliefs there.
Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
August 26, 2009 10:13am
Your assertion by insinuation that all of the original documents were found may fit your agenda to debunk Mormonism but it isn't good journalism. If you have gathered as much information as you have you must know that what was recovered is only a small part of what Joseph Smith had. There is still a large part of the papyri missing.
The internal consistencies, of the Book of Abraham, with what is known of the Abrahamic period point to a conclusion the Joseph Smith got it right.
As much as you would like to declare victory it is not proven yet.
R Rogers, Gooding, ID
August 26, 2009 10:15am
Henk,
The Book or Mormon and the related texts trespass all numerous scientific disciplines (as well as history). Once a religion does that it becomes fair game.
Craig, Washington DC
August 26, 2009 10:15am
Funny that this article leaves out the most recent scholarship on the subject and instead props up the works of Thomas Ferguson, of all people, as some sort of pay dirt on exposing the best the Mormons have to offer. For example, had the author consulted Professor John Gee's most recent offering in the Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, published in 2007, he would discover why the phrase "by his own hand upon papyrus" is actually confirmatory to the Book of Abraham's authenticity. And that isn't even to mention the other scholarship offered by Professor Gee on the subject, or Professor Brian Hauglid, or Professor John Tvedntes, or Professor Daniel C. Peterson, et al. And I won't even bother in asking if the author of this travesty of an article has read anything by Hugh Nibley that wasn't first picked into by anti-Mormons like the Tanners and the fraudster D. J. Nelson.
But I am not surprised. Instead of confronting with the best scholarship LDS scholars have to offer, critics usually tend to revert to worn out and debunked articles that are over 40 years old and written by non-Egyptologist amateurs. Par for the course with the critics, and exciting for those ignorant of the real issues at hand, but overall not very impressive for those who have followed the most recent scholarship.
Stephen Smoot, Salt Lake City
August 26, 2009 10:18am
Stephen Smoot. The sad thing is you are referencing and displaying the same worn out tactics that the apologists have been using for 40 years. It doesn't take a genius to read right through Professor John Gee and his followers. They dodge the real answers by diverting attention to probable conclusions made up in the minds of men grasping at straws. In John Gees recent talk at the Fair conference, he has now resorted to shifting the weight placed on the Book of Abraham saying that it really doesn't play a large roll in LDS doctrine anyway. Just as the 2009 Gospel Principals book has removed references to Brigham Youngs teachings in the Journal of Discourses. The best way to cover up the truth is to act as if it never happened or to act as if it is not important. The fact still remains that this is not the only obvious evidence against the truthfulness of the church, if it were, they may still have something to stand on other than the "testimonies" of born and raised mormons and people in 3rd world countries. This article is perfectly fine in its approach. It clearly states that some of the papyri has been lost and that regardless of that, the evidence still supports the claims that the document translation is false.
Brandon Hansen, Salt Lake City
August 26, 2009 12:05pm
It seems to me that LDS apologists are falling back to the same old defences everyone falls back to when their beliefs are smacked around by science. Instead of proving that Smith's translation is true and the scientific evidence is wrong they start talking about how - despite the evidence - Smith's translation MIGHT be right. How the scientific evidence COULD POSSIBLY be wrong. This is where you start hearing things like "Yes but there are still missing papyri and I'm sure THEY would be totally bang on" or "Smith translated via revelation from God, so maybe these other translations aren't comparable".
Providing increasingly unlikely ways in which something MIGHT still be possible is not the same as proving that something is ACTUALLY CORRECT. Sadly, no matter how frayed the tired thread of belief becomes, there will always be a segment of believers willing to hang on for dear life.
H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
August 26, 2009 1:18pm
If Brian was just in the mood to Mormon bash I think there is lower hanging fruit than this. However Brian bashing seems to be a common theme on almost all of the topics. Though on this topic it seems to be an afterthought after a good special pleading.
Smoot, instead of appealing to authority, can we get a link to some of this new scholarship that is so fascinating? Or maybe hear some of it's finer points and evidence? I for one would like to be enlightened instead of dismissed.
Ryan O'Donnell, Laramie Wy
August 26, 2009 2:02pm
Amusingly, it seems the Mormons took it upon themselves to start an entirely new version of Egyptology after this came to a head 40 years ago.
James P, Calgary, Alberta
August 26, 2009 3:14pm
I have read the book of Mormon from cover to cover and it is without doubt a work of fiction. A very dull one at that. How anyone can believe that nonsense is beyond me.
By the way, has anyone noticed that the planet Kolob is nearly 'bollocks' backwards.
Rational Person, Devon, England
August 26, 2009 3:45pm
I just stumbled this (thumbs up) and I have to say, having been Mormon once, that the emphasis on the Pearl of Great Price has dropped over the years. Now the teaching technique (or at least up until 2 years ago when I took a class on the Old Testament) is to say that much of it is "deep doctrine" and to not dwell on it to much.
The Pearl of Great Price essentially is supposed to be a slightly different account of the events of the Old Testament, up until Abraham, so that other doctrine that is taught doesn't seem so contradictory.
Aaron Dean, Poctello, ID aka Outskirts of Mormonville
August 26, 2009 6:19pm
Stephen Smoot: You wrote, "the phrase 'by his own hand upon papyrus' is actually confirmatory to the Book of Abraham's authenticity," and that this is supported by the work of Gee.
Unfortunately, I haven't the $415 Amazon is asking for "The Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists." Are you aware of any FAIR of FARMS articles that make use of Gee's arguments that might be accessed for a more reasonable sum?
Certainly this potentially significant contribution to Book of Abraham apologetics shouldn't be confined solely to the pages of a $415 book.
Thanks,
Captain Sean Doe
Salton Sea, CA
Sean Wheeler, Salton Sea, California
August 27, 2009 5:16am
Won't matter what proof is offered that show Mormonism is a fraud because its the one religion that has learned how to retrocon its history & dogma.
Robert Jase, New Britain, CT
August 27, 2009 5:37am
Do you know if it was Reuben Hedlock who added the one third of the characters around the outside of the hypocephalus upside down? They are also a different kind of script and picture glyphs are copied directly from the papyrus to complete the sections of the hypocephalus that were missing.
And was it he who put the white head on the jackal god? There are a lot of 'mistakes' in these funery documents; who made them?
Jean, Edmonton
August 27, 2009 11:54am
For those interested, Stephen Smoot (under the moniker "Rommelator") made a post at mormonapologetics.org that cites the relevant portion of the Gee article he mentioned above. Smoot wrote:
"[Critics of the Book of Abraham] insist that the phrase 'by his own hand upon papyrus' MUST be speaking about Abraham literally writing on the papyrus that Joseph Smith possessed. But is this the case?
"In 2007, Dr. Gee published an article with the Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists entitled 'Were Egyptian Texts Divinely Written?'. In it, Professor Gee informs us of the following:
“'In this text [the tale of Setne], the book is said to be written "by his own hand" (n-dr.t=h=f) upon papyrus (dm’) which need not be taken as indicating anything more than authorship.'
"This newly published evidence bolster’s the LDS apologetic claim that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” need not be construed as meaning an holographic nature for the text.
"Note: Professor Gee cites the following to support his claims; J. H. Johnson, Thus Wrote Onchsheshonqy, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 1991), 31; W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, (Oxford, 1939), p. 427b-428b."
Stephen Smoot's entire post, and the subsequent discussion, can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/StephenSmootGee
Take that, critics.
Regards,
Captain Sean Doe
Salton Sea, CA
Sean Wheeler, Salton Sea, California
August 27, 2009 2:13pm
"By the hand of," in Egyptian might very well mean 'authored by' rather than 'literally penned by'. However, Joe Smith was pretty unambiguous as to what he meant when he said it in English. More than once.
It's funny to see some apologist use some of the same arguments proven faulty in the article, but citing retreads of the same old defenses as new work.
"It's been 40 years, the younger crowd won't know."
Brandon, Falconer NY
August 27, 2009 10:28pm
You're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Regardless of the meaning of "by the hand of" you are still stuck with the fact that these texts bear no resemblance to the Book of Abraham as translated by Smith and his companions.
Given Smith's criminal record for fraud it seems likely that this was simply one more deliberate deception.
Craig, Washington DC
August 28, 2009 1:48pm
Learning about the true nature of the Book of Abraham is often one of the deal-breakers for people on the verge of leaving the church, it was for me.
Scott Carnegie, Winnipeg
August 30, 2009 9:56pm
Just wanted to clue in those interested that the Mormon Expressions podcast did an hour long program on the problems with the book of Abraham and how this affects members both in and out of Mormonism.
http://www.mormonexpressions.com
Love the Podcast! Keep up the good fight Brian.
Jim, Mid South
August 31, 2009 3:24pm
Slight correction tot he podcast, Joseph called the writing in the Book or Mormon Reformed Egyptian, not just Egyptian.
Scott Carnegie, Winnipeg
August 31, 2009 8:26pm
Excellent writing on the subject.
It's not hard to see why the Mormons don't push this particular "holy writing" any more, except probably to their kids as they get indoctrinated at a young age.
G. White, Arlington VA
September 04, 2009 6:51pm
The origins of the Christian Bible contain many similar instances. It's only because Mormonism is such a young religion that we have examples like this that are so accessible. Fundamentalist Christians would be surprised at how little provenance there is for a book they find to be inerrant and literally true.
If you read anything from Celsus (a Roman critic of Christians) you can see where he points out the pattern of altering texts to respond to critics. Comparing early Greek manuscripts to later Greek and Latin texts is an eye opening experience as well.
Craig, Washington DC
September 10, 2009 12:33am
Scott correctly pointed out, Joseph called the writing in the Book or Mormon Reformed Egyptian, not just Egyptian.
What is missing is a clear description of what exactly is Reformed Egyptian.
Wiki on Reformed Egyptian:
Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" orthography as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.[3]
Perry L. Porter, Orem, Utah
September 15, 2009 8:12am
The fact that you take none of the research on this subject from BYU professors and other LDS scholars into account from the the FAIR and Maxwell Institute organizations shows the one-sidedness of your argument. Have you now become another Anti-Mormon hack, or are you really trying to get to the core of the truth? If you were, you'd look at all the data. Ancient traditions point to the fact that the story presented in the Book of Abraham has very much a basis in fact, because these documents were unavailable in Joseph Smith's time. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that the key pieces of the papyrus containing the text of the Book of Abraham that were on the Hor papyrus are missing. The few scraps left over are not the key pieces. For example, only the original of Facsimile 1 is extant. The originals for Facsimile #2 and Facsimile #3 are missing.
Ed Goble, Utah
September 17, 2009 10:28am
What might those ancient traditions be, Ed?
Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
September 17, 2009 7:56pm
Maybe it's written on magic underwear.
Sean Webb, Hamilton
September 18, 2009 3:34am
For Marius:
http://www.amazon.com/Traditions-about-Abraham-Brigham-University/dp/0934893594
Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham (Brigham Young University - Studies in the Book of Abraham) (Hardcover)
by John A. Tvedtnes (Editor), Brian M. Hauglid (Editor), John Gee (Editor)
Ed Goble, Utah
September 21, 2009 1:32pm
Nothing about the life of Abraham does anything to change the fact the Smith lied when he said he translated these papari. Smith stated he could read them, he pretended to translate them and he lied. Smith had been caught engaging in a similar type of fraud already.
As we have strong evidence for Smith's dishonesty in this instances, why would we believe he was honest about his other "translation"?
Craig, Washington DC
September 25, 2009 10:55am
I find your lack of references disturbing. You make factual claims but offer no references to validate your citations or to continue research.
This is poor presentation. At least, give your sources.
David C., Jackson, MS
September 27, 2009 9:30pm
Did you try clicking on any of the links in the article?
I suppose you have some information David that refutes the claims made here. Do you have any evidence that the papyrus samples actually say what you Smith claimed they said? If you have proof that Smith was being honest when he claimed to translate these samples please present it.
Craig, Washington DC
September 29, 2009 10:06am
Thanks Brian! I already knew all of this, but it never gets old. But I admit I am still shocked every time it gets defended.
Brad Anderson, Ogden, UT
October 18, 2009 7:19pm
I went to the following website which showed a copy of the book: The Pearl of Great Price.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LGkTGPfxit4C&dq=pearl+of+great+price&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=XeQnS9_KMoP6MdrYxY8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Having had a lifelong interest in Egyptology as a hobby, I was easily able to see that the first picture has something to do with burial preparation: notice the
Canopic jars beneath the table. The blatant level of fraud amazes me especially since Webster.com states the Rosetta Stone had been discovered in 1799 (almost 100 years before the stated date of publication of the Pearl of Great Price.) I guess Smith was counting on the common man having no way to refute him.
Larissa, Amarillo, TX
December 15, 2009 11:41am
Must be the way you guys read posts..
For me, religion is like sucker tax. The communities look after their own designates. But do I decry religion publicly?
Nope, all religions, as I stated, are the same. You cant single one out from the other. You cannot say catholicism good, LDS bad, Islam good, scientology bad... buddhism good, Hindu bad.
When you start on one, the whole lot has to be gotten. You have to be very good at it as well, otherwise you lose your skeptoid banner.
Leave the shotguns of atheism to the big guys like Dawkins and Hitchens.
Dont leave it to Bill Maher, He wakes up with a different of trousers every day
Henk van der Gaast, Sydney Australia
January 03, 2010 9:19am
In the climate I live in here, it's invigorating to see that intellience and fact does trump belief. If one truly seeks, the truth will be revealed. Joe was a con man,who's lies have seduced millions. Thanks for the information.
J.D. James, Idaho
January 23, 2010 7:22am
Thank you for the interesting article. I appreciate the time you have taken to summarize the material and allow me a greater understanding of the issue.
Adam, Salem, Oregon
January 24, 2010 3:59pm
I find it amazing, in that not one shred of archeological evidence has been found to support Mormon claims of an extensive Middle Eastern civilization flourishing in pre-Christian America, yet people continue to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
Michael Lonergan, Vancouver, British Columbia
January 27, 2010 8:29am
I have been listening to Skeptoid for awhile. I have tried other sceptic podcasts but I found them to abrasive and judgmental.
I haven't participated in the forums, so I don't know how many other Christian listeners Skeptoid has. I am one of them. I particularly appreciate Brian's respect for things outside of his scope--in particular although he may not be a theist I have never heard him speak ill of Christianity or other significant religions directly. I find it much easier to respect his opinions because of this.
I have learned a lot from Brian's podcasts and I have been encouraged in applying some of his principles in my own life. One example--a lot of times when coincidences occur, my fellow believers want to ascribe it to God's will. This may be true, but I am also fully aware that the events may not be as unlikely as they seem and that they may have a clear statistical explanation. Of course, despite the fears of many less faithful believers, scientific explanations are NOT at odds with the idea of a Creator and Sustainer. You simply have to learn to look in different places.
Thank you Brian, for allowing me to bring my faith with me on the journey.
Gord P., Winnipeg, Manitoba
January 28, 2010 9:55pm
Michael,
The reason people cling to it is that, Orwell really was right, "ignorance is bliss". Few people are willing to risk the loss of their warm, fluffy security blanket by taking a hard look at the origins of their faith. It's easier to take what's offered at face value and not think too hard about it.
Craig, Washington DC
June 26, 2010 1:41pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Whenever I read about what people will believe when it comes to religion, it makes me want to start one.
H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
August 25, 2009 10:44am