Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/FutureMissionary.com/The Book of Abraham"

Revision as of 20:58, 17 June 2013

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

A FAIR Analysis of FutureMissionary page "The Book of Abraham"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the FutureMissionary article "The Book of Abraham" appears to take are the following:

• The LDS Egyptologist John Gee "confirms" the Joseph Smith translation from the existing papyrus fragments. This is false.
• That Thomas Stuart Ferguson was an archaeologist. This is false.
• That Edward Ashment is an Egyptologist. This is false.
• That the Kirtland Egyptian Papers represent Joseph Smith's attempt to physically translate each Egyptian character. This is only the critics' view, and has not been conclusively determined.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

FutureMissionary says...
The website states that "Joseph Smith was the only person alive who could translate Egyptian."

FAIR commentary

• This is incorrect. Joseph could not read Egyptian any more than he could read the characters on the plates that were used to produce the Book of Mormon. Nobody could read Egyptian at that time. What Joseph claimed was that he could translate ancient records. This he did through revelation.

FutureMissionary says...
The website poses the question "Do Egyptologists confirm Joseph’s translation?" The answer given is that "Every Egyptologist who has inspected the facsimiles or the actual papyrus claim that it is funeral papyri."

FAIR commentary

• The existing fragments of papyrus contain an Egyptian funerary document. This was confirmed by the Church in the January 1968 Improvement Era. Even the LDS Egyptologists confirm that this is a funerary document.

FutureMissionary says...
The website claims that "John Gee is the only LDS Egyptologist who confirms Joseph Smith’s translation." and that "Other LDS Egyptologists and archeologist, like Stuart Ferguson and Edward H. Ashment disagree with Gee’s findings.

FAIR commentary

• This is totally incorrect.
• Dr. Gee, along with other LDS Egyptologists, confirm that the existing papyrus fragments are funerary documents, and that they do not contain the text of the Book of Abraham.
• Thomas Stuart Ferguson was not an archaeologist, and had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham papyri in any case.
• Edward H. Ashment is not an Egyptologist.

Quotes to consider
Here is what John Gee actually said about the papyri (John Gee, "Book of Abraham, I Presume", FAIR Conference, August 2012):

The relationship of the papyri to the Book of Abraham.

1. Book of Abraham was translated from the papyri. Almost no knowledgeable people in the Church believe this. This is a straw man.
2. Book of Abraham was translated from papyri that we no longer have. This seems to be the most likely.
3. Book of Abraham was translated using revelation only. This has less evidence.

The contents of the current fragments are irrelevant to the debate because of point 1.

FutureMissionary says...
The website poses the question "Does the church still have the papyri?"

FAIR commentary

• Yes, the church has some extant fragments of the papyri. High resolution images of the papyri has been made available online by the Church.
• View the high resolution images of the Joseph Smith Papyri online.

Additional information

• Joseph Smith Papyri—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. (Link)

FutureMissionary says...

FAIR commentary

FutureMissionary says...

FAIR commentary

FutureMissionary says...

FAIR commentary

FutureMissionary says...

FAIR commentary

FutureMissionary says...

FAIR commentary

FutureMissionary says...

FAIR commentary