Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is from the lineage of Ephraim, and Ephraim is the son of Joseph and an Egyptian woman named Asenath. Threfore, Ephraim was half Hebrew and half Egyptian. His mother, Asenath, was an Egyptian woman as verified by the fact that her father was Potipherah, an Egyptian priest of the city called On, a major place of Egyptian sun-worship.

According to the Book of Abraham 1:20-27, all those of the lineage of Cain could not have the priesthood, and it speaks of those who are cursed through the lineage of Ham (Noah's son who brought the curse of Cain through the flood) and his wife, Egyptus. Those forbidden to hold the priesthood include Negroes, Egyptians, Ethiopians and all from the lineage of Ham and Egyptus.

According to Mormon doctrine, then, no person who was of the lineage of Joseph or Asenath's two sons (Manasseh and Ephraim) could have the priesthood prior to the change in doctrine in 1978, since Joseph of the Old Testament (from whom Joseph Smith claimed lineage) had married an Egyptian, and her blood was passed on to her son Ephraim, thus prohibting him from holding the priesthood.

Therefore, all Mormons claiming to have a priesthood given to them through successive ordinations since Smith supposedly received the priesthood have a bogus priesthood. Smith never was eligible for the priesthood in the first place, nor could he transmit its authority to any person - since Smith was barred from the priesthood due to his lineage.

Very good point Crusader! Isn't it interesting how many very major problems pop up when you have created a religion and its doctrines.

Except, I don't believe the lineage of Cain was cursed with respect to the priesthood. The reason black were not ordained from 1852 to 1978 is not given. I find the Cain idea to be a justification borrowed from protestant ideas justifying slavery.

Mormons who did buy the Curse of Cain story relied on Midrash explanations for Asenath actually being Semite. These range from placing Joseph in Egypt during a Hyksos period (usual), to having Asenath actually be the daughter of Dinah, placed in adoption by an angel (rare, Midrash source). Mormons are close and literal readers of scripture.

The Book of Abraham does not give a lineage for Egyptus. According to the Book of Abraham, the first Pharoah's connection to Noah was matrilineal rather than birthright.

Originally posted by Crusader

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is from the lineage of Ephraim, and Ephraim is the son of Joseph and an Egyptian woman named Asenath. Threfore, Ephraim was half Hebrew and half Egyptian. His mother, Asenath, was an Egyptian woman as verified by the fact that her father was Potipherah, an Egyptian priest of the city called On, a major place of Egyptian sun-worship.

According to the Book of Abraham 1:20-27, all those of the lineage of Cain could not have the priesthood, and it speaks of those who are cursed through the lineage of Ham (Noah's son who brought the curse of Cain through the flood) and his wife, Egyptus. Those forbidden to hold the priesthood include Negroes, Egyptians, Ethiopians and all from the lineage of Ham and Egyptus.

According to Mormon doctrine, then, no person who was of the lineage of Joseph or Asenath's two sons (Manasseh and Ephraim) could have the priesthood prior to the change in doctrine in 1978, since Joseph of the Old Testament (from whom Joseph Smith claimed lineage) had married an Egyptian, and her blood was passed on to her son Ephraim, thus prohibting him from holding the priesthood.

Therefore, all Mormons claiming to have a priesthood given to them through successive ordinations since Smith supposedly received the priesthood have a bogus priesthood. Smith never was eligible for the priesthood in the first place, nor could he transmit its authority to any person - since Smith was barred from the priesthood due to his lineage.

Originally posted by justjohnna

Except, I don't believe the lineage of Cain was cursed with respect to the priesthood. The reason black were not ordained from 1852 to 1978 is not given. I find the Cain idea to be a justification borrowed from protestant ideas justifying slavery.

Mormons who did buy the Curse of Cain story relied on Midrash explanations for Asenath actually being Semite. These range from placing Joseph in Egypt during a Hyksos period (usual), to having Asenath actually be the daughter of Dinah, placed in adoption by an angel (rare, Midrash source). Mormons are close and literal readers of scripture.

The Book of Abraham does not give a lineage for Egyptus. According to the Book of Abraham, the first Pharoah's connection to Noah was matrilineal rather than birthright.

Asenath's father was a priest of the Egyptian sun god - there is no doubt that he was a true Egyptian, and therefore his grandson, Joseph, comes under the prohibition found in the Book of Abraham, since he had Egyptian blood. There is no evidence that the first

Joseph apparently got carried away with his "translation" of the Book of Abraham, and forgot that he claimed to be from Ephraim's lineage (although how a New Englander from Scotch-English descent could have claimed that is beyond me!).

Adoption through an angel - get real!

Originally posted by Crusader

Asenath's father was a priest of the Egyptian sun god - there is no doubt that he was a true Egyptian, and therefore his grandson, Joseph, comes under the prohibition found in the Book of Abraham, since he had Egyptian blood. There is no evidence that the first

I don't believe there was a cursed lineage, but I'm attempting to represent the Hyksos theory anyway, which is that while the Hyksos ruled Egypt, they took over all the important offices, including religious offices like being priest to the Sun God. I don't think this was originally a mormon idea, to place Joseph in Egypt under the Hyksos. Commentaries point to the new dynasty "who knew not Moses" and oppressed the Israelites as a return to an Egyptian dynasty.

Joseph apparently got carried away with his "translation" of the Book of Abraham, and forgot that he claimed to be from Ephraim's lineage (although how a New Englander from Scotch-English descent could have claimed that is beyond me!).

Well, Ephraim in Scotland goes to the ten-tribes-scattered throughout-the-world idea.

Adoption through an angel - get real!

That's midrash--so you're yelling at Jewish legend, not me. There's a story that Asenath is the daughter of Dinah and Shechem. The Lord preserves Asenath and places her in Egypt to prepare a bride for Joseph.

But you're right, most mormons are as unfamiliar with this folklore as apparently you are.

Have a happy Thanksgiving. I'll stop trying to help you be relevant now, and get back to cooking and cleaning.

just Johnna.

My last posting got muddled somehow. But let me reiterate that jewish lore aside, Asenath's father was an Egyptian, period. Egyptians, according to the Book of Abraham, cannot hold the priesthood.

I think the whole Book of Abraham is bogus (since it is the translation of an Egyptian funeral document from the wrappings of a mummy, and has nothing to do with Abraham in the first place). However, as a Mormon, you're stuck with it, and Smith's silly claim to have translated it. Unfortunately, Smith lived before Egyptologists had obtained the knowledge needed to translate hieroglyphics, so it wasn't until the 20th century that Smith's "translation" was proven to be fraudulent.

Now, I know, perhaps an angel whispered in Smith's ear as he wrote, or the mummy spoke to him from beyond the grave, and that's how the Book of Abraham really came to be. I find that the simplest explanation, however, is usually the truest. Smith simply deceived his followers and pretended to translate the papyrus.

The whole issue of blacks not being able to hold the priesthood was a reflection of the racial bias of Smith's time - it had nothing to do with God, for God is "no respecter of persons", and the only Blood God is concerned about, is the Blood of His dear Son, shed on Calvary's cross (not in the Garden), which is the propitiation for my sins, and the sins of all who place their trust in Him.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Originally posted by Crusader

My last posting got muddled somehow. But let me reiterate that jewish lore aside, Asenath's father was an Egyptian, period. Egyptians, according to the Book of Abraham, cannot hold the priesthood.

Hi Crusader,

Keeping in mind that you don't believe in priesthood--

The Book of Abraham limits the priesthood to birthright descendants. According to the Book of Abraham, Egypt was founded by a woman, and according to birthright rules, there is no matrilineal priesthood.

For free I'll throw in the story about the Hyksos. Potiphera, Asenath's father, was the high priest at On, later called Heliopolis, upper Egypt. I've seen lots of chronologies that place Joseph in Egypt somewhere in the 13th and 15th dynasty time frame, during which Hyksos largely control upper Egypt. I don't need Hyksos for my worldview, but that's the story. It dovetails nicely for the rise of a pharoah who knew not Joseph.

I like putting Moses in under Ahmose and coordinating the exodus with the forced expulsion of Hyksos, but that's just fun and games chronology. The Thutmose story is good too, for Pharoah of the Exodus.

I think the whole Book of Abraham is bogus (since it is the translation of an Egyptian funeral document from the wrappings of a mummy, and has nothing to do with Abraham in the first place). However, as a Mormon, you're stuck with it, and Smith's silly claim to have translated it. Unfortunately, Smith lived before Egyptologists had obtained the knowledge needed to translate hieroglyphics, so it wasn't until the 20th century that Smith's "translation" was proven to be fraudulent.

Of course, I'm not enjoying words like "bogus" and "silly," but we like the Book of Abraham, so we're not giving it up.

I find that the simplest explanation, however, is usually the truest.

Wow, you sound like an atheist now.

The whole issue of blacks not being able to hold the priesthood was a reflection of the racial bias of Smith's time

I think racial bias played a role. There are at least two black men that Joseph ordained to the priesthood.

There's something about the Gethsamene though. Luke notes that Christ was in anguish, and he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. But maybe you think those are extrabiblical additions to the text. Some people do.

- it had nothing to do with God, for God is "no respecter of persons", and the only Blood God is concerned about, is the Blood of His dear Son, shed on Calvary's cross (not in the Garden), which is the propitiation for my sins, and the sins of all who place their trust in Him.

Once again I agree with you in everything important.

"He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black or white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Justjohnna, please provide some scientific evidence that the mummy wrappings used by Smith to translate the Book of Abraham were actually Scripture written by Abraham.

Originally posted by Crusader

Justjohnna, please provide some scientific evidence that the mummy wrappings used by Smith to translate the Book of Abraham were actually Scripture written by Abraham.

Not really my department. You could try Jeff Lindsay's site.

This forum isn't really a good site for Mormonism, at best it's random. I thought I might be able to make a contribution here, as a thank you for TWebbers answering my Bible Study extra questions. A few of you could target your mormon criticism free of obvious mistakes, and I would feel good about us not talking past each other.

But I'm not really calm and cool about people being flip about things that are precious to me. And I'm really still quite embarrassed about flipping out Thanksgiving Eve. I could have admitted I was irritated by language a few posts previous that day. I had not thought of calling you a murderer by saying that since you thought Joseph Smith invented outlandish doctrine in his last year that it's too bad for you he wasn't killed earlier. But I was flip and terse and mad, so what I actually wrote did class you with the mob. That was wrong, and I was in bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil speaking and malice, grieving the Holy Spirit, and not kind. So I ask you to forgive me.

I've gone off topic, but that's what I have to say to you Crusader before anything else. On the Book of Abraham I made peace about its source years ago, so I'd just be looking up the story somewhere like Jeff's site. The text is enough of a witness of itself for my day-to-day.

Originally posted by justjohnna

Not really my department. You could try Jeff Lindsay's site.

This forum isn't really a good site for Mormonism, at best it's random. I thought I might be able to make a contribution here, as a thank you for TWebbers answering my Bible Study extra questions. A few of you could target your mormon criticism free of obvious mistakes, and I would feel good about us not talking past each other.

But I'm not really calm and cool about people being flip about things that are precious to me. And I'm really still quite embarrassed about flipping out Thanksgiving Eve. I could have admitted I was irritated by language a few posts previous that day. I had not thought of calling you a murderer by saying that since you thought Joseph Smith invented outlandish doctrine in his last year that it's too bad for you he wasn't killed earlier. But I was flip and terse and mad, so what I actually wrote did class you with the mob. That was wrong, and I was in bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil speaking and malice, grieving the Holy Spirit, and not kind. So I ask you to forgive me.

I've gone off topic, but that's what I have to say to you Crusader before anything else. On the Book of Abraham I made peace about its source years ago, so I'd just be looking up the story somewhere like Jeff's site. The text is enough of a witness of itself for my day-to-day.

Forget it, Justjohnna, your Thanksgiving Eve thing was fine. I'm just as likely to get sarcastic - even more than you - myself. Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving, anyway.

Now, about the Book of Abraham. What if some Christian scholars claimed that they had found a new Gospel ,written on copper plates, in an archeological dig. In this new Gospel (let's call it the Gospel of Clyde), all orthodox doctrines were verified - including justification by faith alone, the Trinity, the Rapture, the total depravity of man (along with all of Calvin's other points), etc.

Some Mormon scholars, doubting the authenticity of the Gospel of Clyde, asked to examine the manuscripts. Upon examination, it was discovered that the copper plates were good example of Phoenician cuniform writing, and that translation demonstrated that the plates contained records of trade goods.

Would the Mormons not be justified in crying, "foul." Would the Mormons not be justified in accusing the Christian scholars of rank dishonesty?

In the same way, when the mummy rankings were discovered in a museum, and found to be the same wrapping used by Smith to translate the Book of Abraham, and upon examination it was discovered that the wrappings had noting whatsoever to do with Abraham, but were an Egyptian funeral document - don't you think Christians have a right (a duty) to point out this terrible hoax?

When the Book of Abraham is used to justify wome of the strange, esoteric doctrines of Mormonism, don't Mormons have a duty, as well, to test its authenticity - before going door to door attempting to convert people to these strange beliefs?

After all, even the Reorganites have discarded it as authentic, along with other Mormon offshoots (some even saying it is proof that Smith was a "fallen" prophet).

Also, pardon the typos there. Of course, it's mummy wrappings not rankings. Also, some of the strange, not wome of the strange. Oh well, that's what happens when you're typing fast!!!!

Originally posted by Crusader

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving, anyway.

I did--humble pie, Ephesians, good friends. Aren't you the one who tried to save my life, thinking I was putting stuffing in a bird the night before?

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. However, in a short while my favorite will be Easter. I hope you had a lovely Thanksgiving.

Now, about the Book of Abraham. What if some Christian scholars claimed that they had found a new Gospel, written on copper plates, in an archeological dig. In this new Gospel (let's call it the Gospel of Clyde), all orthodox doctrines were verified - including justification by faith alone, the Trinity, the Rapture, the total depravity of man (along with all of Calvin's other points), etc.

Some Mormon scholars, doubting the authenticity of the Gospel of Clyde, asked to examine the manuscripts. Upon examination, it was discovered that the copper plates were good example of Phoenician cuniform writing, and that translation demonstrated that the plates contained records of trade goods.

Would the Mormons not be justified in crying, "foul." Would the Mormons not be justified in accusing the Christian scholars of rank dishonesty?

Except, the papyrus found at the Museum of Chicago hasn't been presented by the Church as source material in the way you describe the presentation of the copper plates of the Book of Clyde. There isn't dishonesty here, rank or otherwise. Instead, a situation which gives rise to the speculation that the papyrus collection from the Museum is incomplete, and/or that the Book of Abraham was received by revelation with little reference to the artifact.

I will stipulate that if mainstream Christianity brought forth the Book of Clyde, it would be available in a way the Abraham papyrus is not.

When the Book of Abraham is used to justify some of the strange, esoteric doctrines of Mormonism, don't Mormons have a duty, as well, to test its authenticity - before going door to door attempting to convert people to these strange beliefs?

It's hard to say whether Book of Abraham justifies the ideas or the ideas justify the Book of Abraham. It's presented without archeological evidence, so you get to choose.

I'm leafing through my mind here for unique scriptural basis for doctrine in the five-chapter Book of Abraham, recalling that chapters 4 and 5 are Genesis 1&2 restated. I guess we're talking about the premortal existence idea, which isn't esoteric or exotic to me. Any mormon kid knows there was a premortal existence.

Here's the Book of Abraham.

• Edited by a Moderator •

It appears that url may be faulty. I'll try again:
• Edited by a Moderator •
However, if that doesnt work: go to utlm.org and do a search on Book of Abraham

Really, Justjohnna, I think it is fairly well documented that the mummy wrappings received by the LDS church are those used by Smith.

Moderated By: JohnSparks

Crusader, we don't allow argument via hyperlink-only on TWEB. If you wish to make a point using information from another site, please quote the relevant information, then provide the link for further info, and cite your source. Don't quote entire articles by the way, just relevant information, and use your own words to explain the quotes and why they are relevant. Also, if you make a mistake in a post (like the link was bad in the previous post) don't just post again to correct it. Use the "edit" button on the post to make corrections. It is available for editing for 45 minutes after the original post. Thanks. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Originally posted by Crusader

Really, Justjohnna, I think it is fairly well documented that the mummy wrappings received by the LDS church are those used by Smith.

Those mummy wrappings from the museum, gratefully received by the church along with Emma Smith's affidavit, are clearly among the Egyptian materials available to Joseph. It is my understanding, however, that the Chicago Museum collection is incomplete. For one thing, only one of the three figures is among the Chicago documents.

Also, though my undocumented memory is not helpful, I believe there was a Kirtland account description of some of the documents, that included are longer piece than is included in the museum papers. It may have been a Lucy Mack Smith account, and it may have been recollected decades after. It doesn't constitute proof, but such an account harmonized with the idea that the Chicago collection is a subset of what Joseph had.

The whereabouts of the rest of the collection is unknown. Jeff Lindsay cites John Gee's estimation that the museum collection represents about an eighth of the Egyptian documents that were available to Joseph Smith. I haven't seen John Gee's paper, which he wrote for FARMS in 2000, so I don't know how he arrived at this oddly precise estimate.

The Book of Abraham is presented without documentation. I would consider the situation similar to an item at auction without a complete provenance. You consider it a forgery or fake. I do not.

Justjohnna: We could go round and round on the BOA. However, for a very scholarly presentation from a researcher who knows more than you and me, go to the following website where you can download the book, "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri."

http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhohintr.html