From https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

"Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation.33 According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. "

From the Book of Abraham title page:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

So which one was it? "Written by his own hand" or as the Ensign says "broader definition of the words translator and translation" It can't be both.

(Big, HUGE) But:

they think they can.

also, what % of 'the faithful' ever question or doubt what leaders tell them?

with the possible exception of Holland, details are seldom mentioned in Morland..

Ah, but you see..."back then" in them good old bad old days, when something was written by someone "in their own hand", it could mean it's the fourth or fifth copy handed and rewritten by other people--but it's still WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND.

Maybe they had to copy it over and over because the papyrus kept falling apart; Abraham could have a lot of trouble by writing on...say...gold plates?

:-)

The two explanations together cause me to experience cognitive dissonance. They leave anyone who has read it to scratch their head in bewilderment. But the imaginative translation is what is popular by the apologetics academians down at BYU. These are the professors that are on the payroll of LD$ inc sent to build the faith of the unbeguiled youngsters sent off to college to find themselves (or a mate?).

It's big business, these men (and token females) sit around in their nice offices and write actual books explaining this stuff. And Morgbots buy it?

What's truely confounding is that they don't even pretend to believe in "literal translation" of anything. They are all borderline apostates (by Mormon standards) working for the church.

If you pay me enough, I’ll believe anything.

They have a rock in a hat and rocks in a breastplate. They are proving they can have it both ways.

"the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation..."

WHILE HE MADE IT THE FUCK UP!!!!!

Period. End of subject.

Mormonism isost in it's own CUTure.

What's'new?

... lost in it's own CULTure.

Spell check, you're FIRED!

Now...

You're right, of course. They can't have it both ways.

(1) Joseph Smith claimed that he was translating the papyri. Either he was lying or he was mistaken. In either case, it renders everything else associated with that "translation" project suspect and unreliable. If his revelation pipeline was so foggy that he didn't even understand that he wasn't really translating the characters on the papyri, all bets are off.

(2) Remember what David Whitmer reported about Joseph Smith's gift of revelation (based on what Joseph Smith stated to David Whitmer): "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." When you're hedging your bets to that extent, there really is no reason why anyone should trust anything that you claim as "revelation".

Basically, the way that Joseph Smith operated was to claim that God was speaking to him and giving him important revelation-- usually something that was beneficial to Joseph Smith and required others to make some sacrifice, in exchange for some promised blessing.

If, by chance, it actually worked out, Joe would make a big deal out of it: "See! SEE! I told you I was a real prophet! You should be ashamed of yourself for entertaining even the tiniest doubt."

If it didn't work out as promised, well, there was an endless list of excuses, followed by a silence and hoped-for forgetfulness.

"Well, someone wasn't obedient." OR

"Well, obviously, you did not make the sacrifice with a clean and generous heart." OR

"God is testing us as he did Abraham of old." OR

"As imperfect beings, we do not fully comprehend the workings of God in this manner." OR

"We were not spiritually prepared and allowed Satan to deceive us into thinking that this was of God, when it was actually of the Adversary." OR

"I was testing your obedience, lest I hastily cast pearls before swine. "

Churchco is still using the same playbook. Of course, they're very careful not to boldly make revelations and predictions the way that Joseph Smith did, because they know how much work it is to spin and dissemble and twist whenever the bold revelations and predictions blow up in their faces. They know because they're still spending a lot of time and energy covering for Joseph and Briggy's big bogus bloviations of buffoonery -- as evidenced by all the ridiculous pretzel logic being employed to excuse the fact that the Book of Abraham has been 100% proven to have no connection to the papyri that Joe claimed it was from.

The church tries this all the time. They do it with race as well.


From the official church essay on race and the priesthood:
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

From the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 5:21 - “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”


Jacob 3:8 - “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.”


Alma 3:6 - “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.”

3 Nephi 2:15 -
 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites”



So the church now disavows that dark skin is a curse from God, but the "Keystone" of the faith, and "The most correct book on earth", claims multiple times that dark skin is a curse. Which one is it? If the Book of Mormon is correct, then the present leaders are false prophets. If the present leaders are correct, then the Book of Mormon is false and the entire basis for the church crumbles.

Well, ya see, they say that they disavow the "theories advanced in the past."

The prophets in the Book of Mormon were just like the prophets in these latter days, they were just more in the past.

Sometimes they would put forward their own theories, "theories advanced in the past" if you will, just like our latter-day prophets put forward their theories.

Brigham Young had some theories involving javelins and death and such. He also had a theory that we were supposed to be praying to a different guy than the guy we thought we were praying to.

Spencer W. Kimball had some theories involving Navajo children turning pale and such.

They were theories. Just theories. Theorized theories of theorization in theory. That's all. Just keep repeating the word theory until you're sleeeepy, very sleeeeeeepy....

Book of Mormon prophets wrote their theories on those golden plates. They were just theories. Didn't Spencer W. Kimball once say that "a theory not written down is only a wish" or something like that?

Anyway, Simon Says...err...I mean...the Living Prophet says that we can ignore those theories that were advanced in the past, including the ones that were inscribed on the golden plates that can't be seen because they were taken away by an angel. So, just get some correction tape and cover up those theories in the Book of Mormon and just stop thinking too much. We have living prophets to do the thinking for us. If you keep trying to do it yourself, you'll just get headaches. Does this year's lesson manual say anything about darkened skin being a curse? No? Well, there you go. It's all taken care of.

It's so in front of their faces how do they not see it? I really don't get it.

Granted it took me multiple decades.

This is a really good point.

On the one hand, the true literal translation idea will have more power over the believer's imagination--as long as they believe it. That makes them amenable to doing what they are told, because the power of God is...ugh..manifested in a miraculous way. The institutional church leaders would prefer that more people fall into this camp, because they're more obedient and committed.

On the other hand, there's a lot of credible information out there--including a peer reviewed article in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies that shows conclusively that whatever the minor quibbles--Joseph Smith's translation wasn't even in the ball park. Consequently, they resort to this post-truth, words don't mean what they say type of flimsy excuse when they no longer hold power over the imaginations of the believer in an attempt to keep you at least marginally in the fold.