Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

semlogo

What are the implications if the BoA is false?

Recommended Posts

I'd rather not discuss whether or not the BoA translation is accurate - there are many long (and often tedious) threads debating that topic. What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false? Is there room for continued faith in the LDS church regardless? I think there is, but I'd like to hear your perspectives.

The Book of Abraham is an accurate translation. That's is my prespective.

However, I am curious as to what you are attempting to accomplish with this thread. It doesn't appear to be a very useful discussion IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post

The Book of Abraham is an accurate translation. That's is my prespective.

However, I am curious as to what you are attempting to accomplish with this thread. It doesn't appear to be a very useful discussion IMHO.

My purpose is outlined in the OP. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

My purpose is outlined in the OP. Thanks.

Not really. It's more like a poll of who would stay faithful and who wouldn't. Unless that's your purpose.

To me the BOA is meat and the gospel isn't dependent on it but it certainly adds an eternal, purposeful perspective not found elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

The Book of Abraham is an accurate translation. That's is my prespective.

Out of curiosity, just what is it that you believe the BoA is an "accurate translation" of?

Share this post


Link to post

Out of curiosity, just what is it that you believe the BoA is an "accurate translation" of?

The papyrus that contained an Egyptian version of the Book of Abraham, of course.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm struggling with a similar issue about the Book of Mormon. I'm rather convinced that it's not literal history but that also means that e.g. Moroni is a fictional character, which means that the foundational story of the church cannot be true, wich makes you wonder why Joseph Smith made it up in the first place, etc. I don't think content is the only issue. One must take the circumstances into account as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi semlogo,

What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false?

I would say that for the great majority of people who belong to the LDS church (surely there are exceptions), it has very little (perhaps no) implications at all.

Is there room for continued faith in the LDS church regardless?

Obviously, there is indeed.

I think there is, but I'd like to hear your perspectives.

I think you are right.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post

Not really. It's more like a poll of who would stay faithful and who wouldn't. Unless that's your purpose.

To me the BOA is meat and the gospel isn't dependent on it but it certainly adds an eternal, purposeful perspective not found elsewhere.

It very rarely comes up in lessons and talks, at least in my ward.

Share this post


Link to post

It very rarely comes up in lessons and talks, at least in my ward.

That's because it is the meat and I think a lot of people consider it just a retelling of Abraham's story in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post

It depends on what you mean by "false". That term had a completely different meaning in the early 19th century than it does today. You have to understand what JS meant by it. You have to adjust your paradigms, give up your presentism, reevaluate your expectations, read more Kuhn etc.

Hey- wait a minute!

I was gonna say that!

Share this post


Link to post

It further opens possibility that all of his "revelations" were little (or nothing) more than the results of a Rorschach Test

Share this post


Link to post

Well, part of the process is for the members to take a few decades to figure out that it's happening (or already happened). After a generation or two, most Church members will find it odd that it was ever any different.

But the first thing to do is to stop publishing articles like this.

After all, I don't think too many members will mourn the demise of teachings such as this:

If you take a linguistic constructivist view of this, it all goes away.

Things are the way we define them. Frankly, I think any other view is naive. If Pluto can be a planet one day and not the next, Kolob can change position any time we all agree it did/does. Everything is myth.

Share this post


Link to post

Out of curiosity, just what is it that you believe the BoA is an "accurate translation" of?

Of Joseph's revelations!!

Edit: Let's not be naive here- does anyone think the Bible is more than some revelations from largely unknown sources?

Do they have anything to do with "history" whatever that is anyway? It might or might not be "true" but it is unknowable either way, so why worry about it?

Take it for what it is, and follow what God tells you. Our doctrine even allows for people to get different "answers" in the belief that we will all know the truth in the afterlife anyway.

In my view, there is not much more that can or needs be said

Share this post


Link to post

Here, read this then answer the OP for me:

Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd. ed.

Foundations of Linguistics - Approaches and Concepts:

Constructivism, applied linguistics, and language education

Thomas Cobb

D

Share this post


Link to post

I know next to northing about the Book of Abraham papyrus problems but as I understand it, the translation has been shown to be false. Nothing has changed. I still believe it to be valuable inspired scripture. I also believe that God wants us to have reasons to not believe in the prophets and this is one of those challenges to our faith. The Book of Abraham presents for many, an Abrahamic test, its beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
I know next to northing about the Book of Abraham papyrus problems

Your next statement makes this point abundantly clear.

as I understand it, the translation has been shown to be false.

There is no reasonable evidence that "the translation has been shown to be false." At worst, and this is a stretch, antis and critics have shown that Facsimile 1 did not mean, in ii~II, what Abraham meant when he authored the book that bears his name many centuries earlier.

But even this is tenuous because, as our own lovable Kerry Shirts (e=mc2, aka "The Backyard Professor") has shown, most of the questions raised by the critics are not clear-cut, nor have they already answered their own questions definitively. I give you the "Hathor cow". Through Joseph, Abraham tells us that the Egyptians used her to represent the sun. It turns out that the clamor critics have raised about this not being the case was itself false, and that Hathor does represent the sun after all, at least in some contexts. Take a look at his work[/url.

This is all true, and it may apply to some people in different ways from others, but until the antis and other critics have, in hand, all the papyri Joseph had in 1840, there is no basis for rejecting the translation on the evidence available today.

If the papyri should ever surface, then, and only then, will the Saints have to worry about there possibly being evidence of the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham. I do not expect that to happen for many reasons, not least of which is that, while we have recovered a minimal portion of those documents, their history indicates they were burned long ago, along with the mummies, in Chicago.

Further, as you said, the Lord tests our faith, but He also gives His enemies just enough ammunition for them to shoot themselves in the foot as they go along, certain their scholarship and "wisdom" have destroyed the truth.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Your next statement makes this point abundantly clear.

There is no reasonable evidence that "the translation has been shown to be false." At worst, and this is a stretch, antis and critics have shown that Facsimile 1 did not mean, in ii~II, what Abraham meant when he authored the book that bears his name many centuries earlier.

But even this is tenuous because, as our own lovable Kerry Shirts (e=mc2, aka "The Backyard Professor") has shown, most of the questions raised by the critics are not clear-cut, nor have they already answered their own questions definitively. I give you the "Hathor cow". Through Joseph, Abraham tells us that the Egyptians used her to represent the sun. It turns out that the clamor critics have raised about this not being the case was itself false, and that Hathor does represent the sun after all, at least in some contexts. Take a look at his work[/url.

This is all true, and it may apply to some people in different ways from others, but until the antis and other critics have, in hand, all the papyri Joseph had in 1840, there is no basis for rejecting the translation on the evidence available today.

If the papyri should ever surface, then, and only then, will the Saints have to worry about there possibly being evidence of the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham. I do not expect that to happen for many reasons, not least of which is that, while we have recovered a minimal portion of those documents, their history indicates they were burned long ago, along with the mummies, in Chicago.

Further, as you said, the Lord tests our faith, but He also gives His enemies just enough ammunition for them to shoot themselves in the foot as they go along, certain their scholarship and "wisdom" have destroyed the truth.

Lehi

I'd prefer if we could avoid discussing the reasons why the BoA could be true or false in this thread, thanks. There are plenty of other threads for that.

Share this post


Link to post

...

Ultimately there is still plenty of room for continued faith in mormonism so long as the Book of Mormon survives. If it is ever falsified (to the degree that the BoA has been) then I think it might time to close up shop and go home.

I would add that we are not alone in the issue eroding scriptural authority. The bible has been crumbling since Galileo and before, and certain narratives, namely the Creation and Flood Stories, have been completely falsified. Yet many people continue to believe in the bible despite this.

If was this "crumbling" of the biblical history that has formed the first distrust I developed in the BoM. It does not "survive" if the Bible is falsified. Too much in the BoM depends on the Bible being literal history....

Share this post


Link to post

I'd rather not discuss whether or not the BoA translation is accurate - there are many long (and often tedious) threads debating that topic. What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false? Is there room for continued faith in the LDS church regardless? I think there is, but I'd like to hear your perspectives.

I am new here.

This question seems ridiculous to me. I see it as an all or nothing matter.

It is like asking, what if Christ had failed in atoning for mankind.

Do you accept the Book of Abraham as what it claims to be?

If not, why?

Share this post


Link to post

I am new here.

This question seems ridiculous to me. I see it as an all or nothing matter.

It is like asking, what if Christ had failed in atoning for mankind.

Do you accept the Book of Abraham as what it claims to be?

If not, why?

From the replies here, it's clear that some see it black and white as you do, and others in shades of gray. Based on the all the evidence available, it appears most likely to me that the papyrus has nothing to do with the BoA. I haven't come to a final conclusion though. I have been contemplating how to deal with that in terms of faith, hence this thread. I see room for continued faith in the church.

Share this post


Link to post

To be quite honest, I don't think the BoA can be proven false, we don't understand the translation process well enough. I believe nack or zenirus went into some detail about this on one of their blogs... about the 'indirect' method of revelation sometimes.

However, I wouldn't put my money in any bag or method technique... trusting in God works much better =).

which would ever happen, really =).

Share this post


Link to post

But the first thing to do is to stop publishing articles like this.

I doubt they'd publish that article today. Remember, the internet didn't really come into widespread use until the late 90s. I watched episode 2, "The Facsimiles", of this PoGP broadcast on the BYU channel the other day. Andrew Skinner and everybody else, except Mike Rhodes, appeared completely clueless as to what the papyri were.

After all, I don't think too many members will mourn the demise of teachings such as this:

President Joseph Fielding Smith stated that in this verse the Lord

Share this post


Link to post

To be quite honest, I don't think the BoA can be proven false, we don't understand the translation process well enough. I believe nack or zenirus went into some detail about this on one of their blogs... about the 'indirect' method of revelation sometimes.

However, I wouldn't put my money in any bag or method technique... trusting in God works much better =).

which would ever happen, really =).

Well, it depends on what you mean. False as in the translation is wrong or false as in the doctrine is wrong? The former is falsifiable, the latter is not.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd rather not discuss whether or not the BoA translation is accurate - there are many long (and often tedious) threads debating that topic. What I'm asking is, what is the implication if it's false? Is there room for continued faith in the LDS church regardless? I think there is, but I'd like to hear your perspectives.

I think there would certainly be room for continued faith in the CoJCoLDS if the BoA were false.

Look at any other religion that holds to a different view than LDS.. like Islam or something like that. I imagine an LDS might see a great deal of falseness to such a faith, yet these Islamic folks seem to retain their faith without trouble.

But I imagine there is a bit more subtlety to your question.

Seems more like you are asking if a believing LDS, after reaching the conclusion that the BoA was false, could still be a believing LDS.

If that is your question, I don't think so.. at least not for an extended period. Seems like you would have to start looking at doctrine related to the BoA and figure out what to do with it. I think it would be a quite complicated thing.

If an LDS believed the BoA was false, seems like that would be such a pick and choose position. To dismiss the BoA, because there was some proof it was false and also accept the notion that the BoM is true, JS is a Prophet and so forth.... I just don't think that would be a lasting arrangement of faith. Just my opinion of course.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it depends on what you mean. False as in the translation is wrong or false as in the doctrine is wrong? The former is falsifiable, the latter is not.

How could you tell if the translation was "false"?

If you could not tell, what does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...