Bruce Porter - The Book of Abraham

[LittleNipper]

The fact is that ALL fundamentalist Christians (including people such as Rev. Franklin Graham and those among the Creation Science Institute) simply have no regard for fake books including (but not limited to) your book of Abraham -- or as might be termed the cult of Gnosticism.

A question for you.
Have you read the Book of Mormon?

Absolutely, I have read the book of Mormon.

I'm not entirely sure I believe you. Did you read it with the attitude that it was a novel?
Or did you read it with "real intent"?

I read it with the "attitude" that there exists a group of people professing the "Book of Mormon" to be inspired and rest that belief entirely on their feelings. And I did read and found this said Book of Mormon to not be of the same quality or caliber as GOD's original text. There is no verse anywhere in the Bible that exhorts anyone to "ask the Father if what is in the Bible is true." No where in the Bible is one told to murder a relative and cheat and lie and steal and threaten in order to take possession of GOD wanted someone to have. Of course when I did read the "Book of Mormon," I had already read the Bible and had years of Sunday School and exposure to Sunday Services where the Bible was methodically studied. I never heard anything ever mentioned concerning the "Book of Mormon," until a couple of guys on bikes wearing ties talked to me on the street, came to my house and presented me with this "Book of Mormon". The only intent seemed to be theirs...

[Alaris]

I started a separate thread on my recent article, "Horus - Abraham and the Davidic Servant Part II" I will link the article here as well in case anyone finds this thread from google, etc.

Both Bruce Porter's video and my article pose the idea that truth is still reflected in Egyptian art and writing. Even though Egypt descended into idolatry, the foundation was laid by a righteous Pharaoh in close proximity to Noah himself. Just as the Catholics worship idols and pray to the wrong "gods," who are often legitimate, real & righteous people, so too did the Egyptians make idols from a foundation of truth. It's like the same devil was using the same playbook or something!

https://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/ ... -part.html

[Jesef]

The Book of Abraham is controversial. The Church's recently published essay affirms this:
https://www.lds.org/topics/translation- ... m?lang=eng

That essay is quite apologetic - it attempts to address concerns about the Book of Abraham & its "translation", etc. - but from a strictly believing/biased perspective. The Church often uses their very own BYU Egyptologist, John Gee, to defend it (Nibley being dead now). This is a response to the Church's essay & John Gee's defenses, by John Gee's former professor, & one of the country's foremost Egyptian scholars, Dr. Robert Ritner, University of Chicago Egyptologist:

His book, Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, can be purchased here:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/product/j ... an-papyri/

A brief synopsis/article can be found here (this one doesn't have the pictures but it loads quickly):
http://www.mormonthink.com/essays-book-of-abraham.htm
This one is a pdf & has the pictures but seems fairly large to download:
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchica ... evised.pdf

I thought this quote was interesting, any thoughts?

The Lengthy Controversy
Scholarly rejection of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham is not new and has continued unabated since the study by Jules Remy and Théodule Devéria in 1861, with multiple scholars (including A. H. Sayce, Arthur Mace, Flinders Petrie, and James H. Breasted) dismissing the book's validity in 1912. With the rediscovery of the papyri at the Metropolitan Museum in New York in 1967, analysis by John Wilson, Richard Parker and Klaus Baer (all 1968), and even the LDS apologist Hugh Nibley (in 1975) disproved any possibility that the Book of Abraham could be an acceptable translation of the surviving Egyptian papyri. My own works on the papyri (in 2002, 2003, 2011 and 2013)showed the same result, as did the LDS-sponsored translations by Michael Rhodes (2002) and the 2005 revision of Nibley's volume. Thus has arisen a host of alternative defenses for the Book of Abraham, questioning the meaning of the word "translation," the length of the original papyri, the possibility of a now-lost section with the Abraham text, etc.18 Many of these defensive positions are referenced in the new LDS church posting. However, clear links between the papyri and the published woodcut illustrations of the Book of Abraham are unmistakable, and the woodcuts contain explicit "explanations" by Joseph Smith,19 as even the new LDS position paper acknowledges: "Facsimile 1 contains a crocodile deity swimming in what Joseph Smith called 'the firmament over our heads' (emphasis added)." Smith also explained the images on the published "Facsimile 2," writing as follows: "The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give, at the present time" (emphasis added). The Book of Abraham itself is specifically subtitled "translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith" (again emphasis added).

In addition, Facsimile 1 is specifically referenced in the text of the Book of Abraham (1:12): "that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." That initial representation is Fig. 4 of Facsimile 1: "The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and the Pharaoh." Further links appear in Abraham 1:13-14, which describe the bedstead "altar" and foreign gods (actually canopic jars) in Facsimile 1, Figs. 5-9. From these clear internal references, the LDS church is wrong to question whether the vignette/ facsimile "and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning." It is simply unacceptable to argue, as the new LDS posting does, that Facsimile 1 may not be relevant since "it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary." The Abraham text states clearly that the representation was not at some distance, but "at the commencement of this record." There is only one such representation included by Smith "at the commencement" of the Book of Abraham. If he actually knew what he was doing, surely he would have copied the correct illustration (which is keyed perfectly — and repeatedly— to the text).

There can be no reasonable dispute that Smith linked the image of Facsimile 1 to the Egyptian papyrus that he —in his own words— "translated." As the original papyrus of Facsimile 1 has survived and is in fact the "Breathing Permit" of an Egyptian priest Hôr, the Hôr papyrus is without question the text that Smith used for his translation that produced the Book of Abraham. The same conclusion is proved by Facsimile 3, a now-lost section of the same papyrus that contains the name of the priest Hôr, mistranslated by Joseph Smith as "Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand." From Smith's words here, it is undeniable that he thought he was translating the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in the normal meaning of the word "translate," just as one would translate Greek or Hebrew characters.

Since a literal meaning of Smith's words disproves the Book of Abraham, the desire of the LDS church to change Smith's clear meaning is understandable, but not believable. This is particularly true since there is surviving evidence of the translation process followed by Smith and the "scribes" to whom he dictated. These include the various copies by Smith, Oliver Cowdery and William W. Phelps of an attempted alphabet or grammar of the ancient Egyptian script (now frequently called Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar") that is noted in the new LDS church web posting and is being edited by Brian Hauglid. In these documents, often garbled bits of Egyptian hieroglyphs or cursive hieratic script are copied in a left hand column and equated on the right with lengthy and quite impossible translations. Where it is possible to identify copied hieroglyphs, they again come from the Hôr papyrus (Fragment I, col. 3), the clear basis for Smith's work. It does not matter in whose hand the copies were made, since the work was under the direction of Smith, who alone claimed the rights of translation. Recall that the book was "translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith," not Cowdery or Phelps.

Despite the insistence of the new LDS position paper, it is not true that "Joseph Smith did not claim to know the ancient languages of the records that he was translating." In his published 1844 "Appeal to the Freemen of the State of Vermont, the 'Brave Green Mountain Boys,' and Honest Men," Smith claimed to know Chaldean and Egyptian, among other languages. The supposed Egyptian, "Su-e-eh-ni (What other persons are those)" is gibberish.20 Smith's claim to know Egyptian is noted even in the LDS web posting in a quote from Phelps on Smith being "uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters" so that "he soon knew what they were."

[Jesef]

Dr. Ritner writes:

All of Smith’s published “explanations” are incorrect, including the lone example defended by the new web posting (from the LDS Essay, defenses by John Gee): the water in which a crocodile is swimming (Fig. 12 of Fascimile 1), supposedly a representation of “the firmament over our heads ... but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to be to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens.”

[Alaris]

Wow I had no idea it had been a year since I posted this. Coincidentally, my wife and I watched this again last night. We picked up on so much more this time--granted it was a second viewing, but we've learned so much over this last year. Watching this video is what led me to take a closer look at Egyptian Mythology. Two months later I published an article that demonstrates how the principal deities in the Egyptian religion were founded in the actual deities of Jehovah (Osiris) and the heir of the Davidic Covenat, or the Holy Ghost (Horus.)

https://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/ ... -part.html

If you watch the video in the OP (super highly recommended,) you'll see how Brother Porter shows the many similarities between the Egyptian "religion" and the restoration of the gospel. Though Egypt descended into idolatry, and even if that occurred relatively quickly, it was absolutely founded in the Priesthood - and not the Aaronic but the Melchizedek. Here's what we picked up on this time.

Woman's Divine Role

Though Pharaoh is the God-King, he is legitimized by his Mother. In other words, the woman's role is to choose, or anoint, the heir. According to Abraham, Egyptus, grand-daughter of Ham, initiated the Egyptian civilization through the anointing of her son. This feminine anointing is all over Egyptian hieroglyphs (probably shared that in this thread - it's certainly in the article above.) B Porter linked this back to Egyptology where Hathor initiated the Egyptian Civilization. He also linked this feminine choosing of the heir to Sarah / Hagar and to Rebekah (Jacob vs Esau) - This is not only super duper relevant right now given the recent changes to the temple endowment, but also mirrors the Revelation 12 sign of the celestial, crowned woman who "gives birth" to the man child. The "birthing" is the anointing of a new, unconditional inheritor. This may be one of the central roles of a Heavenly Queen.

Pharaoh

B Porter showed how Joseph Smith knew the meaning of Pharaoh before scholars did. "Divine Blood" or "Great House" (iirc) is the Joseph Smith and later translated meanings respectively. Take a step back for a moment. A God-king - or a kingship that takes man and makes him divine. This divine kingship is the office of the Holy Ghost. The office of the Holy Ghost (Horus) takes a man and makes him a God. Uncoincidentally, this is the story of Horus as well.

Horus - veil worker (Peter, James, and John)

Brother Porter shows a facsimile from our church records that is very likely from the Book of Joseph which is already super interesting / exciting. He then shows how this same scene reflected in the facsimile is reflected in the Ani scroll - a famous facsimile that is both extremely well preserved and extra detailed as far as these scrolls are concerned that depict the same. He transitions to the Ani scroll to show how very similar it is to the temple ordinance. He cites Bruce R and Talmage who both (iirc) have stated that Joseph Smith restored the temple ordinances from the Book of Joseph.

Now - in the Ani scroll, Ani (who represents the person going through the temple) is taken through a process where he is judged. Once he is judged, Horus then takes Ani and presents him at the veil to the Lord. Horus is essentially vouching for Ani as the prime judge. "Behold the suffering of him who did no sin" is not Jesus speaking of Himself in the third person but the officiator of Yom Kippur (also touched on in the video by B Porter,) or the Holy Ghost who is represented by Horus. It is the Horus falcon who represents the angel of the Lord in facsimile 1 that saves Abraham from Elkenah. In facsimile 2, Horus is the one seated at the top right, representing figure 3 (1 is the Father, 2 is Osiris / Jesus, and 3 is Horus / Holy Ghost) and two eyes of horus are shown there and also in fig 8 (iirc) where the "key words" are being shared. These key words / new name represent the resurrection which we have several modern scriptures attribute to an unnamed angel. Where we have Ani as the one going through the ordinances in the Ani scroll, the name of the person going through the ordinance of facsimile 3 is ... Horus.

So who do the veil workers represent in the temple but Peter, James, and John. James and John are the chief "priests" becoming both king and priest. And, in the Ani scroll it is Horus presenting Ani to the veil. This is a direct link from Horus to Peter, James, and John, and I have shown elsewhere how James is either the Holy Ghost or represents / symbolizes him.


What did Abraham know?

Reading Nephi with the key to this mystery in mind, it becomes very clear why he suddenly starts quoting Isaiah. He basically says, "I am forbidden from sharing this mystery," in one chapter, and then suddenly starts painstakingly transcribing Isaiah. Basically, "I can't share this mystery, but Isaiah had permission to share this: Here read this. No, really."

So what about Abraham? There sure is a lot of Horus in those three facsimiles. And then Abraham proceeds to tell a story of a kingdom that was started by a woman who anointed her son. Watching the video in the OP, I realized how much the Book of Abraham really may be all about this same mystery. I've covered Abraham 3 muchly and the two vying to be chosen to be the "god of this world" which is a sub, sub dominion of Jehovah / Jesus Christ. Abraham talks about how he desired the rights belonging to the fathers - to be both king and priest - to be a greater knower of Righteousness, to be a father of nations, and a prince of peace. He speaks of the stars, of Kolob, and the light shared between them and uses this "greater stars" sermon to then expound upon souls and how despite there being a greater soul (Horus / Holy Ghost) there is yet a soul greater than them all (Jehovah Jesus Christ.)

1/3 Book of Abraham

B Porter speaks of 1/3 of the Book of Abraham that was never published. My immediate thought was, "Was this intentional?" The Book of Abraham so clearly underscores this great mystery hidden from the foundation of the world, does the last 1/3 spell it out and say something to the effect of when it should be revealed? Sound crazy? Consider President Nelson's recent quote about how if you think the church is fully restored, you have another thing coming. Consider this next conference may have something to do with this continued restoration. Consider, The Books of Abraham and Joseph may have something to do with this. Maybe.

Book of Joseph

Do we still have this? We have the facsmile. If this is from the book Joseph Smith said was the Book of Joseph, why haven't we published this - even if we don't have Joseph Smith's "explanation." Or do we have it after all?

*Edit* When B Porter brings up Hathor, he shows an Egyptian representation of the heifer (which is in facsimile 2 as well) and that red heifer prophecy is very likely related to the revelation and activity / role of the feminine divine.

[rimbauer.peter]

Thank you Alaris for bringing this topic up again! I have seen his video many times, and I am still amazed by the knowledge it contains. I highly recommend Bruce Porter's book, A Pearl of Great Price Study Guide: Moses.

"Book of Joseph - Do we still have this?"

I loved what BP said about Hugh Nibley and his remark on The Book of Joseph.

Recently I have been thinking about the rest of the BoM, about the sealed portion. Why don't we have this? Because of unbelief, faithlessness and so on. But what if we and 200 other faithful members go to Salt Lake right in front of the prophet's office with a huge sign that says: "We believe! We want more knowledge!" and stay there until the prophet says something?

The Book of Joseph still exist and will be published when the members.... I don't know how to continue. I hope you get what I mean.