Rosa , That quote is true but sometime the truth is more complicated than it seems. It doesn’t stop being true but sometimes the answers aren’t simple and can’t be answered with yes or no. All the work to understand the past is not finished, all investigation is not concluded. You can shout with joy and celebrate in advance for the destruction and fall of this church of Jesus Christ , but this story is not over yet. There is much work to be done and while many do nothing more than point their finger and mock, there are many who continue to seek understanding. When things are clarified those who mocked will wish they had not doubted. The ancient church also has its complications and problems, if we could bring the church of Moses to our time it would not survive, it would be destroyed by the same judgments of those who want to destroy this church.
Personally, as a “chapel Mormon” i’d like to hear experts have an open dialog/panel discussion on the difficult topics regarding the BoA. A “scholarly” process including written volumes, essays, backs and forths in written media sounds like it would take a lot of time. It seems we have experts all around us. Let’s have someone from The Maxwell Institute act as moderator and being in some SMEs and cover some of the topics with a little hair on them. Just a couple of hours should do it. I’d like to see if common ground can be found when the bright minds on both sides of the debate get together to discuss. Come gents, educate us in an open forum/podcast, don’t make us read lol!!! Interesting stuff Dr Muehlstein.
There's a great book by an LDS author that shows that there's perfect harmony between the prophetic statements concerning the garden of Eden being in Missouri and the Old Testament account concerning the garden of Eden. It's called Canaan, Babylon, and Egypt A Comparative Theological Analysis on Creation sold by Eborn Books.
I agree with his statement that, "the text is either true or its not". Although I completely disagree that the only way to know if it is true "is to ask God". Reason being that it is the same process that FLDS, Catholics, Muslims and Jehovahs Witnesses all discover the truth of their Churches and Books. How can we differentiate between feeling peace out of our own Biases, and real confirmation from God it so many other people in other religions get it wrong? What is the difference so we can trust this process of finding truth?
Hi Kerry, love your work. Since RFM seems bravely MIA, I’m bringing it here. In my Defense Pt 3 of Question 1- SIMPLIFICATION & REVIEW Correct if wrong : ) You (RFM/Robert/Dehlin and other Critics) dismiss those who accept the BofA as scripture, and malign their defenders because: In spite of abundant contrary evidence, you assume and assert: A- all BofA sources are accessible and have nothing about Abraham and are incorrect. B- scripture must describe History as you see it. You support A with these assumptions previously shown to be false or tenuous: A-1: the extant Parrish BofA manuscripts couldn’t be retrofit attempts because no LDS attempted such things (only Champollion, etc), and no one besides Joseph and Chandler would try to translate anyway, even though they clearly did. (Cowdery, Phelps, Page, perhaps Joseph Sr., Lucy, Anthon, Chandler’s learned, and so on). A-2: Joseph couldn’t translate a missing papyrus, even if he had one, because he created Cowdery’s Valuable Discovery and Phelp’s plea for help and you assume this because you assert the VD is in Joseph’s “own hand” (just worked really hard to make it look like Cowdery?) and so, this false assumption lets you insist Joseph mistranslated some accessible Egyptian, which Robert then translates another way... (right?) You support A (all sources are accessible and translated) with these assumptions to be shown false or tenuous here, in Pt 3 of Q1 replies: A-3: a-that the post October 1835 Parrish (or etc) BofA manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven; b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP. A-4: Webster didn't do it like that. You support A (all sources are accessible) with these assumptions to be discussed with my replies to the other 2 questions: A-5: contra evidence, the catalyst theory doesn’t work because a-Joseph never did anything like that, b-and he couldn’t be wrong about what he thought or said, c-and translation is what we say it is, not those involved. A-6: contra evidence, the Facsimiles prove Joseph couldn’t translate, so “case is closed” and minds are closed, regardless of anything else: the Facs. were “translated” as we insist they were: a-no group or “we” project ever happened, b-no intellectual studying it out (with or without JST-like Clarke references), c-no reapplication (ancient or modern), no J-red, no C-red, or JS or peer views allowed; d-no aesthetic changes in Fac 3 wording, e-no scribal errors, etc. etc. Nothing outside your narrative can possibly be true... : ) Assumption B- (scripture must describe History as you see it), to be discussed when it comes up.. Continued in replies
PART 3 of Question 1, finally, yay, 😊 You support A (all sources are accessible and translated) with these assumptions to be shown false or tenuous here: A-3: a-that the post October 1835 Parrish (or etc) BofA manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven; b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP. ABSTRACT: the evidence indicates BofA translation began in early July; reliant EA, GAEL, etc. production followed in conjunction; Parrish became scribe Oct. 29; reliant extant manuscripts WWP then WP/FGW then WWP/WP and Richards, followed and were, evidently, a retrofit, reliant upon previously translated text; Parrish’s statement of scribing original translation from Joseph referred to post Oct 29 translations and not the extant copies; the alignment of Hor BP and other characters in the copies is not original translation; said character alignment, EA, GAEL, retrofit, etc. projects were most likely projects led by WWP but, even if Joseph, etc. directed some of the copying, “research,” etc. it doesn’t discredit his BofA translation. RFM/Ritner primary Assumption A-3: a-the post October 29 Parrish (etc) BofA 1:4-2:2 manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven to Parrish. Now that we know retro/reverse translations are reality, and also interest in creating an Adamic/Egyptian/Hebrew alphabet (they thought related), etc. HOW do we decide if WP 3 (JSPP “3. Warren Parrish Copy of Book of Abraham Manuscript” was a retrofit or original? We each create narratives to fit our thinking, but for examples, which of these (JN vs RN) is best supported by history and reason?: was it Chandler came to town; JS takes 2 “or more” scrolls home (OC maybe gets some fragments, maybe sees them as epitaphs etc or>) perhaps OC WWP take turns scribing that night (remember the History etc. entries are late, and perhaps secondhand); either way, at some point around July 3 Joseph sat down with WWP and OC as scribes and commenced the translation, with Joseph looking at a seer stone, as he had, and translating the characters on a BofA. Before or after, it’s decided that 1 or more scrolls (depending on whose memory) contain records “purporting” to originally be of Abraham and/or Joseph (created by, finished by, etc. Joseph); and the mummies are not Patriarchs. Before or after, MC insists they buy the unwanted mummies also, and translation is ongoing between travel, busy schedules, issues, etc. Parts of the BofA and a couple of excerpts from Joseph are finished before Nov. when Parrish is scribe. In the 2nd half of July work on Phelp’s, etc. EA/GAEL begins. This is also ongoing and in conjunction with BofA translation. They created the EA/GAEL (also called translating, but a different kind) under Phelp’s experienced direction (including the Hebrew, and Adamic/Egyptian, etc. as seen in his teachings, letters, etc. and his seeking for the gift of “science and languages”), and align various characters “to” previously translated BofA text,etc. which they included in the EA/GAEL. Toward the end of the EA someone interpreted Abr. 1:12’s “commencement of this record” as meaning the Hor BP text right next to Fac. 1. They record characters from the Hor BP, with other various characters (including WWP’s Adamic, if my memory serves me), etc. Finally, they align GAEL almost precisely with Abr. 1 text. In Nov., etc. Parrish is scribe, and records additional original BofA text directly from Joseph, and also works on the GAEL “research” or “science” or “translation” Rosetta project (probably intended to help others with their goals of translating) by taking turns, (or etc., see references) copying characters from the EA/GAEL, etc. and then reading from an original JS dictated BofA with FGW, and recording matching GAEL text in the “twin manuscripts” or “copy.” Thus, the twins are not the direct inspiration documents.
OR, could it be an RN narrative: Smith, Phelps, etc. had long been researching Abrahamic lore and languages hoping to validate priesthood, very fortunately, July 3, MC brings papyri with vignettes matching this lore, JS feels pressured to perform (though he wouldn’t with Aztec, etc. thought to match the BofM, but would with Egyptian lookin Kinderhook (maybe using Phelp’s GAEL to decipher after getting nothin by rock...showing he actually believed in the stuff he made up, lol). They pay a bundle only wanting the papyri but not Onidah or the princess who found Moses or etc. Joseph announces the papyri, which we have, are records of Jos&Abr., sits on them until Parrish is Scribe in Nov., spends laborious days, starting late July, dictating various characters making up an EA/GAEL, counting, etc. adds various phrases from various existing sources and also, perhaps mainly, a nonexistent BofA, so he can later laboriously translate the papyri (apparently direct revelation by stone was out of style, or not, doesn’t matter, we’ve rendered case moot by PhD ;), sorry, I try...Joe King tho, lol...). When they get to the end of the EA, they realize Fac. 1 is at the beginning of the record, so grab some characters near Fac. 1 and record; then create a GAEL starting on pg. 15/16 where Smith dictates “This order should be preserved,” and some Hebrew (which he hasn’t yet studied) etc. and ...Ah broam- a follower of righteousness,” “...Coming down from the begining...The first in lineage, or right…”etc. etc. & “from Chaldea I travelled to , etc. “Zip Zi.” (remember from the authentic Egytpian original Zeptah?) “The women sought to settle her sons in that land. she being the daughter of Ham,” etc. and they finally arrive at pg1 where they align it to the nonexistent BofA text and “dang,” says Smith, the Hebrew Beth means house and we have that all along associated with the nonexistent BofA Abr. 1 place of residence stuff, and looky here, we dun left it out...it’s gotta match the text we’re going to create when Parrish is here using these characters and stuff, we got the Iota as seeing, and everything else lines up just right with the text of the nonexistent BofA which we’ve referred to in various documents, etc. and the characters are from the papyri that the nonexistent text says is at the beginning, so yeah...let’s go back right before moving on and add notes all the way through in the spaces, etc. so it matches the forthcoming BofA, : )!” Then,face in hat (either looking over shoulders, or by powerpoint or chalkboard, etc.), in Nov. etc. Smith directs Phelps and Parrish to draw said characters, dissect, number, etc. to match the forthcoming nonexistent text (finally, yay!), that’s he’s memorized, and then wow!; direct from Heaven it all matches up with the words coming out of his hat. “Holy Kah-te-Min and ZePtah! Wow! Shiz-am!” say the very impressed and knowledgeable Phelps, Parrish, and Williams “profit threw & threw &c.! How’d he align that with the GAEL Hebrew in my handwriting without even looking at the GAEL? We better not make fun of him later on in Hebrew school!” Meanwhile, back in Sept, and etc. Cowdery is secretly adding Book of Joseph material to Blessings, etc. and Phelps already added more nonexistent BofA material to the GAEL, etc. along with some previously translated OTHER stuff, etc. (only OTHER stuff was previous, only BofA not, correct?), not to mention that someone at some point, before all this excitement, added BofA material to the D&C, etc. and so on and on. : ) Did I get that right? He does this with only a few errors e.g. he receives an entire paragraph directly from heaven twice (easy to read that wrong because started with the same line in the nonexistent original so...yeah, or I mean, reveal it wrong as Richards records but WP not hearing that); or e.g. they hear Regular rather than Royal (easy to reveal that wrong, because g and y look alike when dictated from heaven, good thing Joseph saw them and corrected on the fly after a double check the hat ;)); and so on.
SO,HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHICH which is more REASONABLE and historical? We can think with our Mormon “half a brain” : ), and also check the Historical record with our other half… : ) Even Robert and maintenance people can do this (in spite of degrees or lack) : ). Evidence indicates there were at least 2 interrelated projects and that the “direct inspiration” translation mentioned by Parrish wasn’t a reference to the extant manuscripts, but a reference to a later translation session when he was scribe. The recorded sequence (supported by textual criticism and other evidence) shows: ”...On the 3rd. of July...Chandler came to Kirtland...two or more rolls of papyrus” July 6th, 1835 certificate from chandler that Joseph’s translation is as good as the learned. July 3-6 or 6-8 Joseph sat down with WWP and OC as scribes and “...commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics…” and translated enough to know there was a book of “Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.” This may have been by seer stone, face in hat, and not looking at papyri (which doesn’t mean God put words in his mouth, but seems to be more a search for the past and putting it into his own language, or a “co-creative” project as Mike Ash suggested for the BofM, with its abundant evidence). Either way, evidence indicates this was not Joseph dictating characters to record in margins and then studying, etc. It’s logically honest to conclude that something was recorded by the two scribes, that some of that included text from Abraham and Joseph, and that Parrish wasn’t there. July 1835 “” (&c.= >?) “The remainder of this month...engaged in translating an alphabet TO the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.” Note, the sequence of events, they translated portions of the BofA, and then translated/created an EA/GAEL TO the BofA. This part clearly involved WWP and was likely led by him (as evidenced by Hebrew, arrangement, etc.). The EA, in spite of what Vogel used to argue, contains BofA material, but, in agreement with Vogel, the EA/GAEL have “nothing to do with the translation of the BofA.” This is because they are derived from it and other previous materials. We continue to get statements such as this before Parrish was involved: 7 October 1835 “This afternoon, recommenced translating the Ancient Records.” We can see when Parrish started adding notes in the EA/GAEL after Oct. As late as October 1, 1835 we’re still getting this “This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet (EA), in company with brsr. (OC &WWP) and during the research the principles of Astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients was unfolded.” Parrish apparently wasn’t present for this, but many of the later astronomy entries were his. This indicates that brsr. O. Cowdery and W. W. Phelps likely recorded what was unfolded, and Parrish, in November, or after, transferred to the EA, etc. Note: go ahead and jump to conclusions on astronomy : ), thanks. And after Parrish was scribe: “20 Nov. ...translating...Cowdery returned… [with] Hebrew Books.” (Note, Joseph hadn’t yet studied Hebrew, and Pratt poked fun of his ineptitude with languages when he later attended Hebrew school, they clearly understood that his seer stone gift only applied to things revealed, or etc. the rest was up to his less educated human brain). Then, again, another kind of translating: 26 Nov....Spent the day in translating Egyptian characters from the Papyrus: though severly afflicted ...reading Hebrew. Bro Parish ...being afflicted...asked...in return I asked him to lay his hands on me, and we were both relieved,” (again, others with gifts). You can go through all of that, check word order, copying errors, development of ideas, etc. and think, ponder, etc. all by yourself. And, and if you’re running short on time, others have gone before. However you choose, the evidence indicates the TWIN and WWP/WP Manuscripts were retrofits and copies, reliant upon the original for BofA text. Also, the 1840s BofA was reliant on a now missing text, you may read about that in the references below. Lindsay has done excellent work on this, and read the marathon comments with Vogel, etc. and also comments on Lindsay’s Interpreter article where Vogel was courageous enough, and somewhat open minded enough, to show (without admitting) that he’d changed his stance on some things based on evidence presented on Mormanity. Mormanity: “The Twin BOA Manuscripts: A Window into Creation o…” “Kirtland's Rosetta Stone? The Importance of Word Order…” “The Twin Book of Abraham Manuscripts: Do They Reflect…” And comments here and the rejoinder on the Interpreter: “THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPERS AND THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM: A RESPONSE TO RECENT REVIEWS” In CONCLUSION: the evidence: shows that Gee and others were correct in presenting an early translation date. The D&C, EA/GAEL, Blessings, etc. predating Parrish all show reliance on BofA text (and some on Joseph). The EA/GAEL were created after the BofA and other texts, were reliant upon those other texts, were not used to translate the BofA but were a product of it and the extant Parish manuscripts (with the Hor BP, and various other characters) were created after, and reliant upon one of the other preceding copies of the BofA (perhaps one of those described by witnesses). This supports my narrative that the characters in the margins were a retrofit attempt. ALSO, we know Joseph was scribe on part of the EA, but don’t know how, or if, he was involved with the GAEL as far as selecting Hor BP characters to align to previously translated BofA text. If he was involved, there’s no need to fault him any more than anyone else. An incautious reading of the text would lead him to think just like anyone else. He’s not omniscient, as Critics believe. There’s additional evidence that the GAEL project was not his, to be discussed as needed. Just ask, thanks : ) AND- A-3: b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; and A-3: c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP.” Guess we covered a,b, and c. Good, that was long. A-4: Webster didn't do it like that. If you, John and Ritner were there to tell them, maybe they would have done it your way...but seems Webster did, and others, but that means nothing to me. Let me know if you want further discussion on A-3 (guessing you will, and I’m here for you :)) Moving on to the others ASAP (still have life, family, job, house issues so yeah, but I’m here for you..:).
@@meganevans7828 ooops, wrong comment-- I'm pretty sure I was referring to the conversation on Mormon Stories, where Dehlin has blocked me and (apparently) others showing that Robert, etc. are basing the bulk of their arguments on assumptions (probably dishonest assumptions), fabricated claims. SO, how do you know RFM has been blocked? BTW, I've kindly invited Dr. Ritner (again by email) to a public discussion in comments, but he's hesitating for some reason. He seems so confident in the videos... so not sure what's going on there.
@Kent Purdy thanks, but when I said RFM was MIA I meant on RFM, which is why I brought it over. I was waiting for a response. Dehlin had already blocked relevant and important comments, which might help people such as "Jim" who are, evidently, pondering abandoning spouses over misinformation. Comments blocked here tend to be off topic personal attacks, and I've had some of my off topic comments appropriately blocked by LDS sites. There are two different things happening. RFM did respond later, and had Vogel respond. I'm currently waiting for something before responding. Thanks : )
![[LIVE] Interreligious Meeting with Young People at CJC | Pope Francis Singapore](/img/1.gif)
"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." J. Reuben Clark
Rosa , That quote is true but sometime the truth is more complicated than it seems. It doesn’t stop being true but sometimes the answers aren’t simple and can’t be answered with yes or no. All the work to understand the past is not finished, all investigation is not concluded. You can shout with joy and celebrate in advance for the destruction and fall of this church of Jesus Christ , but this story is not over yet. There is much work to be done and while many do nothing more than point their finger and mock, there are many who continue to seek understanding. When things are clarified those who mocked will wish they had not doubted. The ancient church also has its complications and problems, if we could bring the church of Moses to our time it would not survive, it would be destroyed by the same judgments of those who want to destroy this church.
not at all, and thank you, happy holy days.
@@mykingdom7121 why do you believe it's true?
Here's where we're at. Paul Gregersen debunked the Egyptologist opinions against Joseph Smith by presenting proper interpretation.
Kerry Muhlestein Rocks!!
Personally, as a “chapel Mormon” i’d like to hear experts have an open dialog/panel discussion on the difficult topics regarding the BoA. A “scholarly” process including written volumes, essays, backs and forths in written media sounds like it would take a lot of time. It seems we have experts all around us. Let’s have someone from The Maxwell Institute act as moderator and being in some SMEs and cover some of the topics with a little hair on them. Just a couple of hours should do it. I’d like to see if common ground can be found when the bright minds on both sides of the debate get together to discuss.
Come gents, educate us in an open forum/podcast, don’t make us read lol!!!
Interesting stuff Dr Muehlstein.
There's a great book by an LDS author that shows that there's perfect harmony between the prophetic statements concerning the garden of Eden being in Missouri and the Old Testament account concerning the garden of Eden. It's called Canaan, Babylon, and Egypt A Comparative Theological Analysis on Creation sold by Eborn Books.
great interview, thanks!
Pueden traducirlo al español? Por favor
Se puede traducir automáticamente en herramientas
The point is that there are not 3 abrahamic faiths, there are 4 actually
I agree with his statement that, "the text is either true or its not".
Although I completely disagree that the only way to know if it is true "is to ask God".
Reason being that it is the same process that FLDS, Catholics, Muslims and Jehovahs Witnesses all discover the truth of their Churches and Books.
How can we differentiate between feeling peace out of our own Biases, and real confirmation from God it so many other people in other religions get it wrong?
What is the difference so we can trust this process of finding truth?
Excellent discussion, he's fabulous! Thank you so much for this video! Very enlightening!!! Keep 'em coming!!! -Ben :-D
Gibberish
Thanks so much Kerry! Nice to learn from you once again!!
Amazing as always!
Hi Kerry, love your work. Since RFM seems bravely MIA, I’m bringing it here. In my Defense Pt 3 of Question 1-
SIMPLIFICATION & REVIEW
Correct if wrong : )
You (RFM/Robert/Dehlin and other Critics) dismiss those who accept the BofA as scripture, and malign their defenders because:
In spite of abundant contrary evidence, you assume and assert:
A- all BofA sources are accessible and have nothing about Abraham and are incorrect.
B- scripture must describe History as you see it.
You support A with these assumptions previously shown to be false or tenuous:
A-1: the extant Parrish BofA manuscripts couldn’t be retrofit attempts because no LDS attempted such things (only Champollion, etc), and no one besides Joseph and Chandler would try to translate anyway, even though they clearly did. (Cowdery, Phelps, Page, perhaps Joseph Sr., Lucy, Anthon, Chandler’s learned, and so on).
A-2: Joseph couldn’t translate a missing papyrus, even if he had one, because he created Cowdery’s Valuable Discovery and Phelp’s plea for help and you assume this because you assert the VD is in Joseph’s “own hand” (just worked really hard to make it look like Cowdery?) and so, this false assumption lets you insist Joseph mistranslated some accessible Egyptian, which Robert then translates another way... (right?)
You support A (all sources are accessible and translated) with these assumptions to be shown false or tenuous here, in Pt 3 of Q1 replies:
A-3: a-that the post October 1835 Parrish (or etc) BofA manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven; b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP.
A-4: Webster didn't do it like that.
You support A (all sources are accessible) with these assumptions to be discussed with my replies to the other 2 questions:
A-5: contra evidence, the catalyst theory doesn’t work because a-Joseph never did anything like that, b-and he couldn’t be wrong about what he thought or said, c-and translation is what we say it is, not those involved.
A-6: contra evidence, the Facsimiles prove Joseph couldn’t translate, so “case is closed” and minds are closed, regardless of anything else: the Facs. were “translated” as we insist they were: a-no group or “we” project ever happened, b-no intellectual studying it out (with or without JST-like Clarke references), c-no reapplication (ancient or modern), no J-red, no C-red, or JS or peer views allowed; d-no aesthetic changes in Fac 3 wording, e-no scribal errors, etc. etc. Nothing outside your narrative can possibly be true... : )
Assumption B- (scripture must describe History as you see it), to be discussed when it comes up..
Continued in replies
PART 3 of Question 1, finally, yay, 😊
You support A (all sources are accessible and translated) with these assumptions to be shown false or tenuous here:
A-3: a-that the post October 1835 Parrish (or etc) BofA manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven; b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP.
ABSTRACT: the evidence indicates BofA translation began in early July; reliant EA, GAEL, etc. production followed in conjunction; Parrish became scribe Oct. 29; reliant extant manuscripts WWP then WP/FGW then WWP/WP and Richards, followed and were, evidently, a retrofit, reliant upon previously translated text; Parrish’s statement of scribing original translation from Joseph referred to post Oct 29 translations and not the extant copies; the alignment of Hor BP and other characters in the copies is not original translation; said character alignment, EA, GAEL, retrofit, etc. projects were most likely projects led by WWP but, even if Joseph, etc. directed some of the copying, “research,” etc. it doesn’t discredit his BofA translation.
RFM/Ritner primary Assumption A-3: a-the post October 29 Parrish (etc) BofA 1:4-2:2 manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven to Parrish.
Now that we know retro/reverse translations are reality, and also interest in creating an Adamic/Egyptian/Hebrew alphabet (they thought related), etc. HOW do we decide if WP 3 (JSPP “3. Warren Parrish Copy of Book of Abraham Manuscript” was a retrofit or original?
We each create narratives to fit our thinking, but for examples, which of these (JN vs RN) is best supported by history and reason?: was it Chandler came to town; JS takes 2 “or more” scrolls home (OC maybe gets some fragments, maybe sees them as epitaphs etc or>) perhaps OC WWP take turns scribing that night (remember the History etc. entries are late, and perhaps secondhand); either way, at some point around July 3 Joseph sat down with WWP and OC as scribes and commenced the translation, with Joseph looking at a seer stone, as he had, and translating the characters on a BofA. Before or after, it’s decided that 1 or more scrolls (depending on whose memory) contain records “purporting” to originally be of Abraham and/or Joseph (created by, finished by, etc. Joseph); and the mummies are not Patriarchs. Before or after, MC insists they buy the unwanted mummies also, and translation is ongoing between travel, busy schedules, issues, etc. Parts of the BofA and a couple of excerpts from Joseph are finished before Nov. when Parrish is scribe. In the 2nd half of July work on Phelp’s, etc. EA/GAEL begins. This is also ongoing and in conjunction with BofA translation. They created the EA/GAEL (also called translating, but a different kind) under Phelp’s experienced direction (including the Hebrew, and Adamic/Egyptian, etc. as seen in his teachings, letters, etc. and his seeking for the gift of “science and languages”), and align various characters “to” previously translated BofA text,etc. which they included in the EA/GAEL. Toward the end of the EA someone interpreted Abr. 1:12’s “commencement of this record” as meaning the Hor BP text right next to Fac. 1. They record characters from the Hor BP, with other various characters (including WWP’s Adamic, if my memory serves me), etc. Finally, they align GAEL almost precisely with Abr. 1 text. In Nov., etc. Parrish is scribe, and records additional original BofA text directly from Joseph, and also works on the GAEL “research” or “science” or “translation” Rosetta project (probably intended to help others with their goals of translating) by taking turns, (or etc., see references) copying characters from the EA/GAEL, etc. and then reading from an original JS dictated BofA with FGW, and recording matching GAEL text in the “twin manuscripts” or “copy.” Thus, the twins are not the direct inspiration documents.
OR, could it be an RN narrative: Smith, Phelps, etc. had long been researching Abrahamic lore and languages hoping to validate priesthood, very fortunately, July 3, MC brings papyri with vignettes matching this lore, JS feels pressured to perform (though he wouldn’t with Aztec, etc. thought to match the BofM, but would with Egyptian lookin Kinderhook (maybe using Phelp’s GAEL to decipher after getting nothin by rock...showing he actually believed in the stuff he made up, lol). They pay a bundle only wanting the papyri but not Onidah or the princess who found Moses or etc. Joseph announces the papyri, which we have, are records of Jos&Abr., sits on them until Parrish is Scribe in Nov., spends laborious days, starting late July, dictating various characters making up an EA/GAEL, counting, etc. adds various phrases from various existing sources and also, perhaps mainly, a nonexistent BofA, so he can later laboriously translate the papyri (apparently direct revelation by stone was out of style, or not, doesn’t matter, we’ve rendered case moot by PhD ;), sorry, I try...Joe King tho, lol...). When they get to the end of the EA, they realize Fac. 1 is at the beginning of the record, so grab some characters near Fac. 1 and record; then create a GAEL starting on pg. 15/16 where Smith dictates “This order should be preserved,” and some Hebrew (which he hasn’t yet studied) etc. and ...Ah broam- a follower of righteousness,”
“...Coming down from the begining...The first in lineage, or right…”etc. etc. & “from Chaldea I travelled to , etc. “Zip Zi.” (remember from the authentic Egytpian original Zeptah?) “The women sought to settle her sons in that land. she being the daughter of Ham,” etc. and they finally arrive at pg1 where they align it to the nonexistent BofA text and “dang,” says Smith, the Hebrew Beth means house and we have that all along associated with the nonexistent BofA Abr. 1 place of residence stuff, and looky here, we dun left it out...it’s gotta match the text we’re going to create when Parrish is here using these characters and stuff, we got the Iota as seeing, and everything else lines up just right with the text of the nonexistent BofA which we’ve referred to in various documents, etc. and the characters are from the papyri that the nonexistent text says is at the beginning, so yeah...let’s go back right before moving on and add notes all the way through in the spaces, etc. so it matches the forthcoming BofA, : )!”
Then,face in hat (either looking over shoulders, or by powerpoint or chalkboard, etc.), in Nov. etc. Smith directs Phelps and Parrish to draw said characters, dissect, number, etc. to match the forthcoming nonexistent text (finally, yay!), that’s he’s memorized, and then wow!; direct from Heaven it all matches up with the words coming out of his hat. “Holy Kah-te-Min and ZePtah! Wow! Shiz-am!” say the very impressed and knowledgeable Phelps, Parrish, and Williams “profit threw & threw &c.! How’d he align that with the GAEL Hebrew in my handwriting without even looking at the GAEL? We better not make fun of him later on in Hebrew school!” Meanwhile, back in Sept, and etc. Cowdery is secretly adding Book of Joseph material to Blessings, etc. and Phelps already added more nonexistent BofA material to the GAEL, etc. along with some previously translated OTHER stuff, etc. (only OTHER stuff was previous, only BofA not, correct?), not to mention that someone at some point, before all this excitement, added BofA material to the D&C, etc. and so on and on. : ) Did I get that right? He does this with only a few errors e.g. he receives an entire paragraph directly from heaven twice (easy to read that wrong because started with the same line in the nonexistent original so...yeah, or I mean, reveal it wrong as Richards records but WP not hearing that); or e.g. they hear Regular rather than Royal (easy to reveal that wrong, because g and y look alike when dictated from heaven, good thing Joseph saw them and corrected on the fly after a double check the hat ;)); and so on.
SO,HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHICH which is more REASONABLE and historical? We can think with our Mormon “half a brain” : ), and also check the Historical record with our other half… : ) Even Robert and maintenance people can do this (in spite of degrees or lack) : ).
Evidence indicates there were at least 2 interrelated projects and that the “direct inspiration” translation mentioned by Parrish wasn’t a reference to the extant manuscripts, but a reference to a later translation session when he was scribe. The recorded sequence (supported by textual criticism and other evidence) shows:
”...On the 3rd. of July...Chandler came to Kirtland...two or more rolls of papyrus”
July 6th, 1835 certificate from chandler that Joseph’s translation is as good as the learned.
July 3-6 or 6-8 Joseph sat down with WWP and OC as scribes and “...commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics…” and translated enough to know there was a book of “Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.”
This may have been by seer stone, face in hat, and not looking at papyri (which doesn’t mean God put words in his mouth, but seems to be more a search for the past and putting it into his own language, or a “co-creative” project as Mike Ash suggested for the BofM, with its abundant evidence). Either way, evidence indicates this was not Joseph dictating characters to record in margins and then studying, etc.
It’s logically honest to conclude that something was recorded by the two scribes, that some of that included text from Abraham and Joseph, and that Parrish wasn’t there.
July 1835
“” (&c.= >?) “The remainder of this month...engaged in translating an alphabet TO the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”
Note, the sequence of events, they translated portions of the BofA, and then translated/created an EA/GAEL TO the BofA. This part clearly involved WWP and was likely led by him (as evidenced by Hebrew, arrangement, etc.). The EA, in spite of what Vogel used to argue, contains BofA material, but, in agreement with Vogel, the EA/GAEL have “nothing to do with the translation of the BofA.” This is because they are derived from it and other previous materials.
We continue to get statements such as this before Parrish was involved:
7 October 1835
“This afternoon, recommenced translating the Ancient Records.”
We can see when Parrish started adding notes in the EA/GAEL after Oct. As late as October 1, 1835 we’re still getting this “This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet (EA), in company with brsr. (OC &WWP) and during the research the principles of Astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients was unfolded.” Parrish apparently wasn’t present for this, but many of the later astronomy entries were his. This indicates that brsr. O. Cowdery and W. W. Phelps likely recorded what was unfolded, and Parrish, in November, or after, transferred to the EA, etc. Note: go ahead and jump to conclusions on astronomy : ), thanks.
And after Parrish was scribe:
“20 Nov. ...translating...Cowdery returned… [with] Hebrew Books.” (Note, Joseph hadn’t yet studied Hebrew, and Pratt poked fun of his ineptitude with languages when he later attended Hebrew school, they clearly understood that his seer stone gift only applied to things revealed, or etc. the rest was up to his less educated human brain).
Then, again, another kind of translating:
26 Nov....Spent the day in translating Egyptian characters from the Papyrus: though severly afflicted ...reading Hebrew. Bro Parish ...being afflicted...asked...in return I asked him to lay his hands on me, and we were both relieved,” (again, others with gifts).
You can go through all of that, check word order, copying errors, development of ideas, etc. and think, ponder, etc. all by yourself. And, and if you’re running short on time, others have gone before. However you choose, the evidence indicates the TWIN and WWP/WP Manuscripts were retrofits and copies, reliant upon the original for BofA text. Also, the 1840s BofA was reliant on a now missing text, you may read about that in the references below. Lindsay has done excellent work on this, and read the marathon comments with Vogel, etc. and also comments on Lindsay’s Interpreter article where Vogel was courageous enough, and somewhat open minded enough, to show (without admitting) that he’d changed his stance on some things based on evidence presented on Mormanity.
Mormanity:
“The Twin BOA Manuscripts: A Window into Creation o…”
“Kirtland's Rosetta Stone? The Importance of Word Order…”
“The Twin Book of Abraham Manuscripts: Do They Reflect…”
And comments here and the rejoinder on the Interpreter:
“THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPERS AND THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM: A RESPONSE TO RECENT REVIEWS”
In CONCLUSION: the evidence: shows that Gee and others were correct in presenting an early translation date. The D&C, EA/GAEL, Blessings, etc. predating Parrish all show reliance on BofA text (and some on Joseph). The EA/GAEL were created after the BofA and other texts, were reliant upon those other texts, were not used to translate the BofA but were a product of it and the extant Parish manuscripts (with the Hor BP, and various other characters) were created after, and reliant upon one of the other preceding copies of the BofA (perhaps one of those described by witnesses). This supports my narrative that the characters in the margins were a retrofit attempt.
ALSO, we know Joseph was scribe on part of the EA, but don’t know how, or if, he was involved with the GAEL as far as selecting Hor BP characters to align to previously translated BofA text. If he was involved, there’s no need to fault him any more than anyone else. An incautious reading of the text would lead him to think just like anyone else. He’s not omniscient, as Critics believe.
There’s additional evidence that the GAEL project was not his, to be discussed as needed.
Just ask, thanks : )
AND-
A-3: b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; and A-3: c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP.”
Guess we covered a,b, and c. Good, that was long.
A-4: Webster didn't do it like that.
If you, John and Ritner were there to tell them, maybe they would have done it your way...but seems Webster did, and others, but that means nothing to me.
Let me know if you want further discussion on A-3 (guessing you will, and I’m here for you :))
Moving on to the others ASAP (still have life, family, job, house issues so yeah, but I’m here for you..:).
@@meganevans7828 ooops, wrong comment-- I'm pretty sure I was referring to the conversation on Mormon Stories, where Dehlin has blocked me and (apparently) others showing that Robert, etc. are basing the bulk of their arguments on assumptions (probably dishonest assumptions), fabricated claims. SO, how do you know RFM has been blocked?
BTW, I've kindly invited Dr. Ritner (again by email) to a public discussion in comments, but he's hesitating for some reason. He seems so confident in the videos... so not sure what's going on there.
@Kent Purdy thanks, but when I said RFM was MIA I meant on RFM, which is why I brought it over. I was waiting for a response. Dehlin had already blocked relevant and important comments, which might help people such as "Jim" who are, evidently, pondering abandoning spouses over misinformation. Comments blocked here tend to be off topic personal attacks, and I've had some of my off topic comments appropriately blocked by LDS sites. There are two different things happening. RFM did respond later, and had Vogel respond. I'm currently waiting for something before responding. Thanks : )