The Book of Abraham - How are you working through this?

[BrotherOfMahonri]

I post this because we are sincerely wanting to hear what the Lord has told you about the book of Abraham and your faith in it's validity, or more specifically in my view the validity of the facsimiles?

I will be the first (maybe rare here?) to admit that I have faith that the Book of Abraham is inspired of God (seeking a witness from him in this currently), and that this evidence against inspired translation comes from a scroll unrelated to the Abraham papyri, a sroll containing the images (facsimiles) we have in the pearl of great price, a scroll depicting a common Egyptian burial, in this case Horace.

I also believe an imperfect Joseph (makes me love him more) maybe mixed in with his child like giddiness (something I can do easily in innocent glee when excited about something the Lord is giving me) while translating the book of Abraham, some of the erroneous interpretations of the facsimiles.

I get how such a mistake can be made and feel God is telling me the same, and am asking for insights from any who have also pondered and prayed about this, as we are beginning to do so, after we study it out.

What about you? How are you, or have you dealt with this issue as of yet, the knowledge of the facsimiles (notice how I am not saying the actual book of Abraham and the written narrative, but the facsimiles themselves as I am seeing they are separate so far in my studying this out) being translated in error by Joseph?

A very positive and objective video documentary I felt was very fair in addressing the issues surrounding the church's own publication and hiring of non-member egyptologists to help translate the remaining fragments of the papyri from which we get at least parts of the Pearl of Great Price.
https://youtu.be/hcyzkd_m6KE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is also strange how I even feel like I have to preface this so carefully so as to not be falsely accused by "members" of being anti-mormon, as the evidence of any of this comes directly due to the church hiring out scholars starting in the 60s and then in the 2000s to be able to know if Joseph got the same as egyptologists in relation to the facsimiles - so please refrain from creating such a narrative, but rather share with us and this forum, what the spirit of the Lord has taught you in this topic and with this issue. The irony in this topic to me is that much of what we know about this comes from outside the church because the church had been so far (other than hiring non-member egyptology expert) unwilling to address what so far has been proven to be a mistranslation of facsimiles and one of the scrolls (plural) obtained by Joseph from Egypt.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

My Questions:

1. Did the book of Abraham come from one of many scrolls (plural) bought by the church back when Joseph was introduced to them? Are we told anywhere by Joseph or those who worked with the original scrolls (plural) that they all came from the bosom of the one mummy, or from the exact same location and tombs in Egypt?

Thoughts on this first question: you hear Joseph in his own diaries state scrolls (plural) when he refers to translating. We know one of the scrolls survived, (the others likely burned in the fire at the museum), which is why we now know the translations of at least the facsimiles was potentially erroneous, which is absolutely fine with me, doesn't shake my faith in Joseph as a prophet at all, but strengthens my belief that God is going to allow weak men to do what they do to ultimately test our faith in Him (God) come mounting evidence or not, and the truth that is contained in the inspired translations through Joseph (ie. the Book of Mormon).

2. Do any of you feel like I am feeling, that this issue is possibly a test for each of us setup by the Lord (his perfect knowledge of even Joseph's mistakes in this matter using our mistakes for our ultimate good and coming to him) to indeed give Joseph the book of Abraham and Moses yet to allow him to erroneously translate the facsimiles (sacred agency respected by God, even to his prophet Joseph?)?

3. Do any of you feel you can truly worship God when we are practicing unbelief in light of believing these facsimiles to be true translations when maybe after all they were a bit erroneously, possibly even over-zealously translated or referred to by Joseph? Joseph has proved to me that pure hearts can enable one to see God (his first vision) - So is it when we allow ourselves to believe in something that isn't true - that we keep ourselves from seeing God in person as promised in D&C 93:1, specifically the part of "coming unto me" - which 'coming unto me' could be a simplistic way of saying, stripping yourself of all unbelief?

I am struggling with the thought of we must "worship God in spirit and truth" in relation to the "Truth" of this matter. My wife and I are being lead we feel carefully down the path of understanding what these verses mean (see John 4:22-24) for us today with regards to something like this, not to mention other "traditions" that maybe we allow to get in the way of correctly worshiping God in spirit and truth.

[Finrock]

It tastes good to me and is familiar food, so I eat and am filled.

-Finrock

[BrotherOfMahonri]

It tastes good to me and is familiar food, so I eat and am filled.

-Finrock

Great saying. Mind expounding on it some in light of this thread? Does that mean you support the documentary, you are stating how you feel truth?

[Curious Workman]

I don't feel like I need to "work through" the BoA. I understand all the concerns about the origins of the Restoration scriptures, but I'm more interested in what they have to say and to teach. If they are a source of light and help me to be more like Christ, then what's to work through? I guess it's been different for me since I wasn't raised in the Church and never had a literalist view of scripture to begin with. I found it interesting that in my baptismal interview and in all subsequent "worthiness" interviews, I've never been asked about my "belief" in the Book of Mormon or other scriptures.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

I don't feel like I need to "work through" the BoA. I understand all the concerns about the origins of the Restoration scriptures, but I'm more interested in what they have to say and to teach. If they are a source of light and help me to be more like Christ, then what's to work through? I guess it's been different for me since I wasn't raised in the Church and never had a literalist view of scripture to begin with. I found it interesting that in my baptismal interview and in all subsequent "worthiness" interviews, I've never been asked about my "belief" in the Book of Mormon or other scriptures.

Wow. That indeed is an insightful perspective shared. Thank you.

Would you mind expounding on this point?
I guess it's been different for me since I wasn't raised in the Church and never had a literalist view of scripture to begin with.
What would a literalist's view of scriptures be? Does that mean, stating things like, "The book of Mormon is true"?
I was raised LDS, and have never heard that phrase before.

I love what you said here, "If they are a source of light and help me to be more like Christ, then what's to work through? "

This ^^^ is how I honestly feel about most of the talks given in GC, as well as with many many inspired things, even more inspired in my view, from outside the church.

I love the feeling of what you shared just now, trying to draw out more of your insights .

So last question in response to your insightful comment, would be my asking you if finding out that something a prophet (in this case) Joseph Smith, translated was erroneous, what does that tell your non-literalist heart and way of thinking?

For me, to answer the question as well, I feel I'm working through maybe what I didn't know was a literalists view I feel the church has pushed upon me being raised in the church my entire life, the false tradition and mentality or thought process of, "If the book of mormon is true, then everything else that comes with it must be true."

[Finrock]

I've read so many texts that are not a part of the canon of the LDS church which I know to contain truth, I don't really care about the history of the Book of Abraham, more than I care about what it is saying and teaching. I feel, recognize, understand, know, and see truth in it because it matches with what I have come to know by the Spirit of truth over time. The Spirit is what I look for when I read and study.

-Finrock

[Curious Workman]

I don't feel like I need to "work through" the BoA. I understand all the concerns about the origins of the Restoration scriptures, but I'm more interested in what they have to say and to teach. If they are a source of light and help me to be more like Christ, then what's to work through? I guess it's been different for me since I wasn't raised in the Church and never had a literalist view of scripture to begin with. I found it interesting that in my baptismal interview and in all subsequent "worthiness" interviews, I've never been asked about my "belief" in the Book of Mormon or other scriptures.

Wow. That indeed is an insightful perspective shared. Thank you.

Would you mind expounding on this point?
I guess it's been different for me since I wasn't raised in the Church and never had a literalist view of scripture to begin with.
What would a literalist's view of scriptures be? Does that mean, stating things like, "The book of Mormon is true"?
I was raised LDS, and have never heard that phrase before.

I love what you said here, "If they are a source of light and help me to be more like Christ, then what's to work through? "

This ^^^ is how I honestly feel about most of the talks given in GC, as well as with many many inspired things, even more inspired in my view, from outside the church.

I love the feeling of what you shared just now, trying to draw out more of your insights .

So last question in response to your insightful comment, would be my asking you if finding out that something a prophet (in this case) Joseph Smith, translated was erroneous, what does that tell your non-literalist heart and way of thinking?

For me, to answer the question as well, I feel I'm working through maybe what I didn't know was a literalists view I feel the church has pushed upon me being raised in the church my entire life, the false tradition and mentality or thought process of, "If the book of mormon is true, then everything else that comes with it must be true."

Well, I guess we are all the products of our upbringings, and I was raised a Roman Catholic, and I've been told by more than a couple of members that "Catholics make the best converts." Probably there are several reasons for this. I'm thinking that one might be that Catholics generally don't have the Protestant attitude toward the Bible, i.e., that everything must be compared against and judged according to how it lines up with the words in a sacred text ("Sola Scriptura"). There's emphasis instead on the teaching authority and traditions of the Church. As far as what I mean by "literalist", a good example would be the view that Job or Jonah are historical persons and if one doesn't believe that, then one is not permitted to put forth the view that the Book of Job or the Book of Jonah is inspired scripture. I suppose the same could hold true for Lehi, Nephi, and Alma, but I'm not going to defend that point of view because I don't want to get kicked off this forum. But I consider the Book of Mormon to be inspired by the Holy Ghost (as well as the Book of Abraham) because of the doctrines it teaches and the light it gives me in understanding what life is all about (and for other reasons having to do with its origin that I won't get into).

[oneClimbs]

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogs ... ystem.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogs ... sm-in.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think Ed Goble might be on to something.

[Zathura]

I don't feel like I need to "work through" the BoA. I understand all the concerns about the origins of the Restoration scriptures, but I'm more interested in what they have to say and to teach. If they are a source of light and help me to be more like Christ, then what's to work through? I guess it's been different for me since I wasn't raised in the Church and never had a literalist view of scripture to begin with. I found it interesting that in my baptismal interview and in all subsequent "worthiness" interviews, I've never been asked about my "belief" in the Book of Mormon or other scriptures.

Amazing response.
I feel the same.
If I never read the Book of Mormon, I doubt I would have come to understand te doctrine of Christ until now, and I wouldn't have been born of God. It changed my life.
If one day I come to find that the BoM is fictional, it will mean nothing to me. I wouldn't flinch for a second wherever the book came from, whether is true or fictional, it brought me to my Savior and led me to be born again and experience the pure love of Christ.
So if it reaches correct principles and brings me to Christ, I care not where it came from.

[EdGoble]

My Questions:

1. Did the book of Abraham come from one of many scrolls (plural) bought by the church back when Joseph was introduced to them? Are we told anywhere by Joseph or those who worked with the original scrolls (plural) that they all came from the bosom of the one mummy, or from the exact same location and tombs in Egypt?

No. The Book of Abraham was revealed text. However, the Sensen Papyrus was indeed associated with this text anciently, just as much as the Hebrew text is associated with the Psalms in the acrostics we find in the Psalms. The Sensen Papyrus is a "alphabet" or list of Egyptian signs. It is the Egyptian Alphabet, or list of signs in a certain order. It so happens that this order spells out the "text" of the Book of Breathings. This is why Joseph Smith called it the Egyptian Alphabet.

http://www.poetrysoup.com/poems/about/a ... tmas_poems

Here is an example of acrostics where symbols from our alphabet spell out something, but the letters are given assignments where the letters line up with the first letter of the things that it is assigned to.

Our own alphabet, which is derived from the Greek, which is derived from the Hebrew, which is derived from the Proto-Sinaitic, has a certain ordering of the letters, which may have had something meaningful that it spelled out too once upon a time.

In other words, the order that we find it in today: A B C D E F G, etc. may have had some significance at some time, spelling something out in an ancient language, or may have been arranged this way for some rational reason.

The Egyptian Alphabet was used anciently to represent many things, the Book of Abraham being among them, no different than the acrostics in the psalms where the Hebrew alphabet is given ASSIGNMENTS. An acrostic is not a "translation" of characters. It is a list of characters where the characters decorate a bunch of things and they are used to artistically enumerate or decorate something, but there is a meaningful connection between symbol to assignment. In the case of most acrostics, as I said, the connection is that the symbol is the same letter that the text that it is lined up with starts with. The same is so with the Book of Abraham text and the Sensen Papyrus, in that there is a meaningful connection between the symbol and what it represents. This is not a conventional translation by any means. This is the rediscovery of one thing that the symbols used to enumerate.

Thoughts on this first question: you hear Joseph in his own diaries state scrolls (plural) when he refers to translating. We know one of the scrolls survived, (the others likely burned in the fire at the museum), which is why we now know the translations of at least the facsimiles was potentially erroneous, which is absolutely fine with me, doesn't shake my faith in Joseph as a prophet at all, but strengthens my belief that God is going to allow weak men to do what they do to ultimately test our faith in Him (God) come mounting evidence or not, and the truth that is contained in the inspired translations through Joseph (ie. the Book of Mormon).

The translations of the Facsimiles are not erroneous. They are abstract symbols with meaning assignments, just like the abstract symbols in the Egyptian Alphabet were assigned values that are meaningful. There is a meaningful tie between symbol and assignment. For example, Facsimile #2, figure 1, is a symbol for the theme "Creation." In Egyptian Mythology, the symbol is used for Khnum-Ra, the God of Creation. In the Book of Abraham usage, the symbol is assigned the meaning "Kolob, the first Creation." Do you get it? The symbol has a general meaning. And more specific meanings are applied to it by context. But you must give it context somehow. The general meaning was Creation, and the applied meanings all have that same theme. The symbols are abstractions with generalized meaning, which are used for a more literal meaning, but multiple meanings can be assigned based on context. And you need an external key (context definition) or external dependency definition. Computer programmers know what I mean when I say "dependency injection." For the Book of Abraham, this is where the explanation provides context to an otherwise abstract thing that means really nothing except for a general theme until you give it a specific assignment outside of it.

2. Do any of you feel like I am feeling, that this issue is possibly a test for each of us setup by the Lord (his perfect knowledge of even Joseph's mistakes in this matter using our mistakes for our ultimate good and coming to him) to indeed give Joseph the book of Abraham and Moses yet to allow him to erroneously translate the facsimiles (sacred agency respected by God, even to his prophet Joseph?)?

No. This is where you really need to understand that there is an underlying rationality to what is going on, and you don't have the background to see it until those who can decipher what is actually happening can show it to you. Is it a test of your faith? Yes. Is it a stone of stumbling to the faithless? Yes.

3. Do any of you feel you can truly worship God when we are practicing unbelief in light of believing these facsimiles to be true translations when maybe after all they were a bit erroneously, possibly even over-zealously translated or referred to by Joseph? Joseph has proved to me that pure hearts can enable one to see God (his first vision) - So is it when we allow ourselves to believe in something that isn't true - that we keep ourselves from seeing God in person as promised in D&C 93:1, specifically the part of "coming unto me" - which 'coming unto me' could be a simplistic way of saying, stripping yourself of all unbelief?

Yes, because people should have had faith that something was really happening in spite of scholars that think that they know everything and over-confidently said there was nothing real here. When you know that there is actually a rational, underlying system, and you know what that system is in hindsight AFTER you had faith in it to begin with, then your faith in an underlying reality that could not previously be comprehended is rewarded by evidence afterward. That evidence is now coming out.

I am struggling with the thought of we must "worship God in spirit and truth" in relation to the "Truth" of this matter. My wife and I are being lead we feel carefully down the path of understanding what these verses mean (see John 4:22-24) for us today with regards to something like this, not to mention other "traditions" that maybe we allow to get in the way of correctly worshiping God in spirit and truth.

There is a truth of this matter. The problem is, there is a lot of what Myamoto Musashi, a Japanese swordsman and scholar, called the clouds of bewilderment here. There is a lot of misperception and misunderstanding. And to make matters worse, what some apologists have done to try to explain things have just further clouded things, because rather than looking for the explanation of the forensic evidence, they have sought to explain that evidence away.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

....

WOW!
Not wanting to take away from the profound things you shared that I will need to study and ponder for a bit more - however, if I summarize what I think you are saying, which actually feels better than what I was thinking was going on, you are saying that Joseph was actually reaching further back than what we understand or scholars come close to understanding in the original intent and meaning of the symbols.

I studied once at length anything I could get my hands on about the Adamic language and was taken on some spiritual highs learning about symbolism and potentially how God would actually write the word (or better said the symbol) STAR.

What you described sounds like the same vein of thought, and that possibly Joseph indeed was doing something much more rich and deeper than these hired scholars (by the church mind you) could even come close to. This both gladdens my heart but also adds in my view another layer if not multiple layers of learning to understand what was going on in this translation.

Either way, I am grateful for such a response... time to ponder on this for sure. I do submit that I don't feel my faith is shaken in the books therein, nor with Joseph, but more so that either he was so human that he messed up (my first postulation) or I am so human that I messed up not even thinking until now, that there is something deeper that all scholarly knowledge doesn't know how to approach as of yet, and that is the pre-symbolism before our arranging of the languages and their meanings...?

[EdGoble]

WOW!
Not wanting to take away from the profound things you shared that I will need to study and ponder for a bit more - however, if I summarize what I think you are saying, which actually feels better than what I was thinking was going on, you are saying that Joseph was actually reaching further back than what we understand or scholars come close to understanding in the original intent and meaning of the symbols.

Original intent and meaning of symbols is a tricky thing. Because what I'm trying to say is that there is a complexity here that makes it difficult to use these types of terms. Let me give you an example/analogy that tries to come a little bit close to what I'm saying.

Imagine that you are doing a math problem or algebra problem. Do you know what a variable is? It is a specialized usage of a symbol in a math context where you have an unknown:

x + 2 = 5

If you "translate" X, then the meaning of x is the number 3. But only in that particular case. So, where was there an original intent here? Because X is only 3 when it is an unknown in this usage. In some other problem, the "meaning" of X suddenly changes, because there is a different problem. In some other problem in algebra, X is something else, because it is an open symbol. But there are rules for this. If you know the problem, then you can see that the symbol is 3 in that problem.

So, if you can comprehend that a picture or symbol in Egyptian, the way these things are used, is like a thing where there is a specialized usage where it doesn't "translate" to something solid or well defined, but that there are strict rules that allow you to give something a certain meaning in a certain circumstance, then this sort of comes close to what i'm saying. So, what is the original intent of the thing when X can mean a number of things? Original intent of the meaning is not necessarily the right concept. But rather, it is better to understand the rules that govern the thing, and then see that the usage or meaning applied to it by Joseph Smith fits with those rules. And then, it is important to understand that Joseph Smith didn't make that up, but that a guy in ancient times was using it that way, and that Joseph Smith was simply reconstructing what that guy did. This is probably closer to the concept that I'm trying to tell you. To say that something has an "original intent" is kind of the wrong concept. The thing that I'm trying to say is that these symbols actually mean what Joseph Smith said they do, when you are able show that these meanings are within the rules that govern how the symbols are used. And that also, there were ancient people doing this, so Joseph Smith didn't invent this. He reproduced something authentic, that is authentically ancient. The problem is that the symbols have other meanings too, so "original intent" is kind of tricky. Rather than original intent, it is better say that Joseph Smith reproduced an ancient problem or ancient construct, and that he also showed the ancient meaning or result that an ancient guy came up with a couple of thousand years ago. If you can comprehend that Joseph Smith reproduced ancient information, then you can come closer to understanding what I'm saying. "Original" intent is probably not the best description.

For example, if you believe this papyrus was written by Abraham, that is not the case. The Book that Abraham wrote anciently is something else,and the text that Joseph Smith produced is an English version of that. This other thing that the Church has is a late Egyptian document that was used by Egyptian priests to represent the themes in the Book of Abraham. But it is not the only thing they used it for. So, this is why I say, the concepts of what this really represents is foreign to most people. And so, it's difficult to convey why it is that this is a thing that translates correctly into themes from the Book of Abraham, but only with an external key. Because it had so many other things that they used it for besides that.

This is why I used the analogy of the variable X in the algebra problem. Because algebra is a specialized way to use symbols that has very specialized rules. But X can mean anything, so long as you have a problem that gives it meaning.

I studied once at length anything I could get my hands on about the Adamic language and was taken on some spiritual highs learning about symbolism and potentially how God would actually write the word (or better said the symbol) STAR.

What you described sounds like the same vein of thought, and that possibly Joseph indeed was doing something much more rich and deeper than these hired scholars (by the church mind you) could even come close to. This both gladdens my heart but also adds in my view another layer if not multiple layers of learning to understand what was going on in this translation.

Other layers is perhaps a good way to describe it. But first, you must understand that something like star in this case depends on a number of factors for it to be meaningful.

Either way, I am grateful for such a response... time to ponder on this for sure. I do submit that I don't feel my faith is shaken in the books therein, nor with Joseph, but more so that either he was so human that he messed up (my first postulation) or I am so human that I messed up not even thinking until now, that there is something deeper that all scholarly knowledge doesn't know how to approach as of yet, and that is the pre-symbolism before our arranging of the languages and their meanings...?

Well, it isn't really deeper than the scholarly knowledge. It has more to do with having a bunch of information about something and putting it together in a certain way to where there are results. It is all about getting everything set up right so that you get real results and then comprehending the rules that get you those results.

[Dash jones]

Old discussion, pointed to from another thread.

I'll be upfront and frank, I have no faith about the book of Abraham. I'm going to approach this as a friendly manner of LDS ideology...which will tame my ideas most likely.

If I recall, the Pearl of Great Price was not originally part of the Canon of the LDS church. It did not become Canon until 1880.

Furthermore, if I recall the original tale, Joseph claimed that it was written by Abraham's own hand (at least for the book of Abraham)?

This could be problematic considering the condition of the scrolls that we have from what some estimate to be from that time period.

So, looking at it favorably, how could this be? Is it possible that Abraham himself wrote this scroll and put the ink on it himself? Possibly.

Or, it could be a meaning where the actual writing is by him, but it has been copied down by another through time or place or other items (for example, one could say the Book of Mormon after the Words of Mormon are by Mormon's own hand. Obviously he didn't run the printing press, but he was the one who wrote it).

Now relating to the Book of Abraham, I'll relate one theory that has circulated among Catholic circles. Could evolution and the bible both be correct? If so, how does one explain Genesis and the times that are along with it?

Instead of being literal, some say that Genesis is allegorical and metaphorical to us. In this, the idea is that the stories are relative to us and our lives. It's all in how one views it or translates it.

I relate this of Genesis, but you could also relate it to the Egyptian books. In this light, they would speak of their legends, but what of those Of Abraham's time or that of Josephs? In theory these Pharoahs and rulers of Egypt may have known more than their simple mythology. IF they converted to the faith of Abraham or that of Joseph, why would the writings reflect the faith of the Egyptians instead?

The simple idea is that they kept these things not due to belief, but due to the allegorical connotations and metaphorical relationship they had with what they felt were true.

If what people tell me about LDS temple rites in relation to the Pearl of Great Price is correct, in that if I read the PoGP, much of what is in the temple is found there, than it could be that many of the things in the Book of Abraham were considered to sacred for simply rote scription. It could be that instead they wrote it in an allegorical and metaphorical way where one who was inspired by the Spirit could discern and translate the actual and original meaning behind what was written, hence revealing what these sacred ideas truly were and meant.

I suppose what Ed Gobles posts above could be relative to that (I'm not as well versed in Egyptology, so that is far beyond me). I do recognize some relatively ancient symbology in one of the facsimiles (though this symbology is no unusual to this particular one, and could be considered common with other interpretations by Egyptologists), however as I'm not as expert in Egyptian mythology as others, I'll leave that for those more knowledgeable (as it appears Ed may be...don't know?)

[JohnnyL]

Reminds me a little of Chinese.
One character can have all kinds of definitions, which definitions can differ quite a bit. When put with another character, it often clears it up. But sometimes, only if you know Chinese history. Also, definitions change over time. And even then getting a set or clear definition is not going to happen. And we're not even getting into slang or vulgar (as in vulgare). In addition, you have names, which can change things.

[EdGoble]

It could be that instead they wrote it in an allegorical and metaphorical way where one who was inspired by the Spirit could discern and translate the actual and original meaning behind what was written, hence revealing what these sacred ideas truly were and meant.

I suppose what Ed Gobles posts above could be relative to that (I'm not as well versed in Egyptology, so that is far beyond me). I do recognize some relatively ancient symbology in one of the facsimiles (though this symbology is no unusual to this particular one, and could be considered common with other interpretations by Egyptologists), however as I'm not as expert in Egyptian mythology as others, I'll leave that for those more knowledgeable (as it appears Ed may be...don't know?)

No, actually the core of what I'm trying to get at is called Iconotropy. The adoption of symbolism, and re-appropriation of it to use it in a manner that it was never intended for by the originator of the symbolism. The guy that invented it in say 10,000 BC didn't have the intent for it to be used the way some guy in maybe 100 AD decided to use it.

For example, the swastika didn't start out to be symbolic of totalitarian evil, but was originally a religious symbol. It was appropriated by the Nazis who employed it and gave it an assignment of meaning that was different than what it started out with. I'm saying that Egyptians and Jews in the alexandrian era appropriated symbols used in Egyptian documents and used them for gods and heroes of other religions that they appropriated. Because the Alexandrian Egyptians were mixing and matching things from many religious traditions, including from the Jews.

So, they took the ancient story of Abraham from the Jews and employed the symbols from an Egyptian document and gave those symbols other meanings that they didn't start out with, to be used for Abraham and his story.

So, in other words, the Book of Breathings is NOT the Book of Abraham technically. The significant fact though is that symbols from it were used to represent Abraham by a small subset of ancient Egyptians that were fans of Abraham. The rest of the Egyptians throughout Egyptian history didn't. But what we are concerned with is that a few at a certain point in time did, which means that there is an "ancient context" for the idea that the Book of Breathings and its symbols were anciently associated with Abraham by certain people. And that means that Joseph Smith didn't make it up the idea that the symbols ought to be associated with Abraham and his story, legitimately. In other words, Joseph Smith transmitted ancient information to us about a valid, ancient use of some symbols, and that means that he didn't lie, and wasn't making this up.