A topic I have been thinking about lately

[Mormon Red Death]

is the Papryus for the Pearl of Great Price.. How come we rarely (never) get a good explanation/teaching about this?. Its in our scriptures. I would love the symbols and such to be explained a little bit more and what it means to us. Any thoughts or ideas on this?

[All-American]

My best response is that there isn't much that's in the facsimiles that isn't in the temple already. Therefore, for the sake of a) avoiding unnecessary reproduction, but mostly b) avoiding referring to sacred things outside of the temple, we just don't deal with it much.

A third thing to consider is the complexity of the subject material. Take a look at the Hugh Nibley book being published on the Joseph Smith Papyri. It is as huge as it is complex. The average Latter-Day Saint mind can barely thumb through 1st Nephi without getting a headache.

[Mormon Red Death]

Don't you think there is a little more to it than "Its in the temple, figure it out for yourself"? Seems to me that God gives us an ancient record shouldn't there be an better descriptor than Hugh Nibley. Not that I am bagging on Hugh Nibley (although whenever I read his stuff I am puzzled that he doesnt footnote more).

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Don't you think there is a little more to it than "Its in the temple, figure it out for yourself"? Seems to me that God gives us an ancient record shouldn't there be an better descriptor than Hugh Nibley. Not that I am bagging on Hugh Nibley (although whenever I read his stuff I am puzzled that he doesnt footnote more).

The Lord will give it to you when you are ready.

[Iluvatar]

Abraham papyri? The facsimilies in the POGP?

[Mormon Red Death]

yes the facsimilies in the pearl of great price...

[SteelBlue]

Here's what I understand, but it's been a while since I studied the issue. The papyri were thought to have been lost in the Chicago fire and up until I think the 1960's (could be way off there) the facsimilies in the scriptures were the only thing we had left. At some point, some of the papyri were found in a NY museum and the brethren were notified and the papyri were purchased. The papyrus used to give the book of Abraham itself was not recovered (again could be wrong here) but one or both of the facsimiles were recovered. Bottom line was that the post Rosetta stone translations did not match up with what Joseph had translated.

Though the papyrus used to provide the text for the book of Abraham was not found (again, I could be wrong here) many have felt that since the description of the facsimilies did not match up, than neither was the other translation correct. Others feel that Joseph may have been inspired while viewing the papyri and have received the "translation" in that manner. Still others feel that if we had the actual papyrus the translations would match. I'd put myself in group #2, I doubt they'd be correct translations but I do believe his work was inspired.

[Iluvatar]

are the source of alot of controversy. The Book of Abraham was allegedly translated from scrolls of papyri that were purchased from a travelling antiquities dealer by the church. Joseph claimed that these scrolls represented certain teachings of Abraham, written "by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Over the months following the aquisition of these scrolls, Joseph went about translating them by somewhat unknown means (it's not clear how much he relied on his seer stone). The facsimilies that you're talking about were first published in The Times and Seasons, and later in TPOGP. After Joseph had finished the translation, and after the martyrdom, it seems the Papyri had vanished into history (most assumed they had perished in the great Chicago fire, as they were housed in a museum there).

In the years after the publication of the facsimilies, scholars began questioning the voracity of their translation. But, without the papyri themselves, analysis of the facsimilies was pointless. Then, in 1967, an employee of the New York Metropolitan museum stumbled across a good portion of the lost papyri. Finally scholars could compare Joseph's translation to the actual meaning of the scrolls.

Unfortunately, Joseph's translation was way off. The scrolls weren't the lost book of Abraham, they were very common funerary scrolls prepared for a man named Hor. They were typical excerpts from the egyptian book of the dead, called "The Book of the Breathings". In short, they had nothing to do with Abraham at all. They weren't even from the right period. They were like 600 years older or younger (I can't remember the dates off the top of my head) than Abraham was. Yet, they were undisputedly the same scrolls (at least in part) that Joseph had used in his "translation" of the Book of Abraham.

This little history is simplified to the point of ridiculousness, and I've omitted some very important details, but you can get the gist.

This opens up a whole can of worms for us. If Joseph didn't actually translate the Book of Abraham from ancient papyri, where did he get it? Was it more direct revelation? Were the papyri only a point of departure for him? Did he recieve the scripture divinely, almost independently of his translation? Or, is it simply a fabrication.

This is why there is no real discussion about the facsimiles, and the translation.

If you're interested in the scholarly translation of the actual papyri that the facsimilies are derived from, I know the basic gist of the heiratcs.

FWIW

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

are the source of alot of controversy. The Book of Abraham was allegedly translated from scrolls of papyri that were purchased from a travelling antiquities dealer by the church. Joseph claimed that these scrolls represented certain teachings of Abraham, written "by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Over the months following the aquisition of these scrolls, Joseph went about translating them by somewhat unknown means (it's not clear how much he relied on his seer stone). The facsimilies that you're talking about were first published in The Times and Seasons, and later in TPOGP. After Joseph had finished the translation, and after the martyrdom, it seems the Papyri had vanished into history (most assumed they had perished in the great Chicago fire, as they were housed in a museum there).

In the years after the publication of the facsimilies, scholars began questioning the voracity of their translation. But, without the papyri themselves, analysis of the facsimilies was pointless. Then, in 1967, an employee of the New York Metropolitan museum stumbled across a good portion of the lost papyri. Finally scholars could compare Joseph's translation to the actual meaning of the scrolls.

Unfortunately, Joseph's translation was way off. The scrolls weren't the lost book of Abraham, they were very common funerary scrolls prepared for a man named Hor. They were typical excerpts from the egyptian book of the dead, called "The Book of the Breathings". In short, they had nothing to do with Abraham at all. They weren't even from the right period. They were like 600 years older or younger (I can't remember the dates off the top of my head) than Abraham was. Yet, they were undisputedly the same scrolls (at least in part) that Joseph had used in his "translation" of the Book of Abraham.

This little history is simplified to the point of ridiculousness, and I've omitted some very important details, but you can get the gist.

This opens up a whole can of worms for us. If Joseph didn't actually translate the Book of Abraham from ancient papyri, where did he get it? Was it more direct revelation? Were the papyri only a point of departure for him? Did he recieve the scripture divinely, almost independently of his translation? Or, is it simply a fabrication.

This is why there is no real discussion about the facsimiles, and the translation.

If you're interested in the scholarly translation of the actual papyri that the facsimilies are derived from, I know the basic gist of the heiratcs.

FWIW

Those in the anti-camp claim unequivocably that those were the papyrii, but I really haven't seen any good evidence whether we know which papyrii were recovered. It is reasonably accurate that the "recovered" papyrii is the funeral liturgy, or Book of Breathings, but we don't know whether the actual papyrii were recovered.

I did not look to see what level of evidentiary investigation confirmed or rejected the conclusions.

[Iluvatar]

that JS used (at least in part) the recovered portions of the papyrii in his translation. This is how we know.

The fragment of papyri used to construct facsimile #1 WAS found. (for an image of this, just run a google search for "facsimile #1 book of abraham papyri"...you'll get plenty of photos).

This portion of the scroll was attached (before JS seperated it) from another portion that had, in order, all of the characters found in JS's Egyptian alphabet and grammar; which he apparently used to translate the whole of the work. Wether they recovered all the Abraham papyri or not, it's clear that he used at least some of the recovered scrolls in the translation.

That's not to say that Joseph didn't recieve the book through inspiration/revelation. It only means that he didn't get it from the papyrus.

If your inerested in knowing more about the specifics, you should pick up Charles Larson's book "By his own hand upon Papyrus".