(July 14, 2014 at 10:49 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The problem is Smith's own diaries, his home made hieroglyphics dictionary which is totally wrong, and other records at the time make it crystal clear that he said he was actually translating and that's what his followers believed.
For a long time the Pearl of Great Price printed a facsimile of the Papyrus with the book. That's how it was identified when found and translated by Egyptologists. After that they stopped printing the facsimile. Go figure.
I understand that according to Smith himself he did claim to actually be translating, but I've heard that the "new interpretation" of the situation in recent years is, whether Joe Smith said he was translating or not, that he was merely using the papyri as, like, a channeling vehicle for God's words, only he had to use the papyri and the urim and thummim (and his magic hat). Some Mormon scholars aren't bothered by the idea that there is absolutely no meaningful connection between Joe Smith's translation of the BOA and the papyri he claimed to be making the translation from. Indoctrination can do wonders with your reasoning abilities.
I agree that this is a MAJOR problem for the Mormon church - after all, if Joe Smith got the papyrus translation that heinously wrong, how accurate is the translation of the BOM? - I'm merely stating that, based on what I've read about Mormon apologetics and scholarship, their apparent back peddling on the BOA doesn't seem all that new to me. It's just that they're finally going public with what the Mormon apologetics community has been talking about for years.
I could be misremembering my Mormon research, though. I've done quite a bit over the last year or so and I get it jumbled in my head a bit - for good reason: the Mormon religion is whacky. :p
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
