Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[wenglund]

Although I very much appreciate and agree with the general idea of what Pahoran is saying here, I have to say that I think it is very unfortunate that the primary manual reads the way it does, and I am confident that the material will be revised the next time the correlation department revisits the lesson manuals.

Why?

Number one because there is no basis for the statement that the Prophet Joseph Smith

[William Schryver]

While this may be true for The first several chapters of Abraham, is it true for the latter chapters? It is my understanding that the latter chapters were translated years after Joseph had "studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language

[Mortal Man]

What is wrong with you? That song isn't about popcorn balls on apricot trees! Just the popcorn! But you could probably stick the popcorn together into a ball with some syrup from a maple tree.

Oh really now? I believe the instructions plainly state that I can "take an armful and make a treat". Does this not tie the popcorn balls directly to the apricot tree? Are you telling me that only the popcorn is associated with the original tree and that the treats themselves could be made later by someone else's arms?

[William Schryver]

Oh really now? I believe the instructions plainly state that I can "take an armful and make a treat". Does this not tie the popcorn balls directly to the apricot tree? Are you telling me that only the popcorn is associated with the original tree and that the treats themselves could be made later by someone else's arms?

Have you seriously considered professional help?

Surely it couldn't hurt. And if it helped even just a little bit ... well, almost anything would be a step in the right direction at the rate you're going.

[MorningStar]

It's like saying orange juice came from a tree. The oranges came from the tree. I could take an armful of oranges and make some orange juice. Or I could zest the oranges and make some citrus mustard pork roast. But I bet you're a fan of pork chops and applesauce.

[David T]

We're dissecting a Primary Activity Song. Awesome.

[William Schryver]

We're dissecting a Primary Activity Song. Awesome.

What's worse is that now the freaking tune is stuck in my head!

Aaaarrrrggghhh!

[Mortal Man]

But I bet you're a fan of pork chops and applesauce.

Yes, I feel that they improve my personality.

[LeSellers]

Yes, I feel that [pork chops and apple sauce] improve my personality.

Please, eat more.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I am now personally convinced that the entirety of the published Book of Abraham (and more that has never yet been published, and is therefore either lost or intentionally withheld) was received/revealed/recorded between July and December 1835, with the majority of the first three chapters having been received in early July 1835. I am cognizant of the journal reference to "translation" that comes from the Nauvoo period. Whatever that refers to, I am convinced it was not any portion of the first five chapters of the BoA. It may simply refer to the "explanations" for Facsimile #3 (and/or, possibly, Facsimile #1). I believe the explanations to Facsimile #2 were also received in 1835.

Fascinating. I look forward to hearing your arguments in support of this position when you are ready to publically present them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Fascinating. I look forward to hearing your arguments in support of this position when you are ready to publically present them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hope to be ready in 72 days.

[Mortal Man]

I hope to be ready in 72 days.

Do you think you can do it by yourself Will, or would you like me to come whisper in your ear?

[mathilde]

For some reason I never cease to be amused by those who think to counsel God on matters of policy and doctrine. Of course, these "ark-steadiers" tend to come from both sides of any issue. Thus you have those who, in essence, tell God He never should have done a thing, while at the same time you have others telling Him He never should have stopped that thing.I'm a big believer in bending and shaping my views to conform to those of God, rather than expecting His views to conform to mine, and I always bear in mind the fact that "what is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another," therefore I never wed myself too strongly to a perspective that is as apt as not to change at some point in the future.

I have no desire to counsel God on matters of policy and doctrine. But I do have a desire, and a right, to make sure that what I am teaching and learning from church manuals is correct. My own inner conscience wants to know that the missionary we just sent to the MTC and placed into the care of this church, has been raised being taught what is true. This small question matters to me not because of the details of how Joseph Smith may or may not have translated irrespective of the papyrus, but because of the content of the book of Abraham that we take to be the word of God, that we preach to others, and content that has helped form our view of the pre-existence and the idea of souls valiant like Abraham before he was even born. And if scholarship like yours points out that the Primary manual should perhaps be corrected in part, what else is there that we need to study carefully to make sure that we are teaching and learning correctly?

I agree with you completely, I do not want to wed myself too strongly to a perspective that is as apt as not to change at some point in the future. I also want to make sure like you that my views conform to those of God and not man. Man sometimes gets it wrong.

[Deborah]

...but because of the content of the book of Abraham that we take to be the word of God, that we preach to others, and content that has helped form our view of the pre-existence and the idea of souls valiant like Abraham before he was even born.

It was canonized as part of our scriptures and has remained so. Isn't that self-explanatory? You seem to be really straining at this and I think it's because you don't like some of the implications of what it says and would like it not to be scripture.

[volgadon]

And if scholarship like yours points out that the Primary manual should perhaps be corrected in part, what else is there that we need to study carefully to make sure that we are teaching and learning correctly?

Does Will's argument actually change the content of the BoA?

[Mortal Man]

Does Will's argument actually change the content of the BoA?

His arguments would certainly change the interpretation of the verses referring to the facsimiles. As far as I can tell, Will would like us to believe that those words are Joseph's not Abraham's.

[William Schryver]

His arguments would certainly change the interpretation of the verses referring to the facsimiles. As far as I can tell, Will would like us to believe that those words are Joseph's not Abraham's.

To be more accurate (as I'm sure you intended to be) what I have argued is that in KEP manuscript Ab2 (Frederick G. Williams) the words "I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record" have been inserted between the lines above and below, thus suggesting the distinct possibility that the phrase was not in the original "translated" text, but very possibly added afterwards.

The argument is based in text-critical analysis and forensic examination, and it is, I believe, quite indisputable. At least I have yet to see anyone dispute it beyond simply suggesting that I'm an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about. That kind of argumentation is acceptable to a certain kind of people, but much less so to others of a more discerning intellect.

.

.

.

volgadon:

Does Will's argument actually change the content of the BoA?

Of course not. In fact, my whole point is that it is the revealed text of the Book of Abraham that is, by far, the most important consideration. In my judgment, it has been neglected for far too long as the critics have successfully focused everyone's attention on the questions concerning its production, believing, as they do, that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers represent the chronicle of that production process. They don't. The KEP documents were produced after the text of the BoA was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. That is the crux of the arguments and evidence I will present.

[wenglund]

This small question matters to me not because of the details of how Joseph Smith may or may not have translated irrespective of the papyrus, but because of the content of the book of Abraham that we take to be the word of God, that we preach to others, and content that has helped form our view of the pre-existence and the idea of souls valiant like Abraham before he was even born. And if scholarship like yours points out that the Primary manual should perhaps be corrected in part, what else is there that we need to study carefully to make sure that we are teaching and learning correctly?

The beauty of a divinely led gospel is that you, as a member, don't need to worry yourself about what else there may be to correct in the instruction manuals for the Church. It is God's concern and business, and the concern and business of those he has chosen on earth to lead and guide his Church, to determent whether and how carefully the instructional material needs to be studied so as to eliminate the kinds of insubstantial historical inaccuaries that may have cropped up in single Primary manuals written decades ago. It is not your concern or business.

This leaves you free to mind your own business--that being, to live your life and encourage others to live their life according to the substantial spiritual truths you have had confirmed to you by God. That way you can model for your missionary son how the gospel is supposed to work, and the value of focusing on one's own stuartship, and on what you have faith is true, and on what is relevant, what matters, and what works, and this rather than modeling the dysfunction of fussing over gnats and irrelevancies that are not one's concern or business, and in ways that unnecessarily raise doubts that ought not matter. In short, model attitudes and behaviors that will position your missionary son for success, rather than failure.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mathilde]

The beauty of a divinely led gospel is that you, as a member, don't need to worry yourself about what else there may be to correct in the instruction manuals for the Church. It is God's concern and business, and the concern and business of those he has chosen on earth to lead and guide his Church, to determent whether and how carefully the instructional material needs to be studied so as to eliminate the kinds of insubstantial historical inaccuaries that may have cropped up in single Primary manuals written decades ago. It is not your concern or business.This leaves you free to mind your own business--that being, to live your life and encourage others to live their life according to the substantial spiritual truths you have had confirmed to you by God. That way you can model for your missionary son how the gospel is supposed to work, and the value of focusing on one's own stuartship, and on what you have faith is true, and on what is relevant, what matters, and what works, and this rather than modeling the dysfunction of fussing over gnats and irrelevancies that are not one's concern or business, and in ways that unnecessarily raise doubts that ought not matter. In short, model attitudes and behaviors that will position your missionary son for success, rather than failure.Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is not the beauty of it to me.

It is my concern and business to try to make sure that what I teach and preach to others (in this case, from a currently used manual) is something I believe to be good and true. It matters even more when it involves my children. Interesting that you assumed the missionary was a son.

Finally, I have not been referring only to possible historical inaccuracies but also to the fact that the content itself is significant enough to warrant questions about its source. Wherever those questions lead. My mistake (one of them) was bringing those questions here.

[volgadon]

My mistake (one of them) was bringing those questions here.

Because people didn't cater to your preconceived notions? In his lectures on Joseph Smith, Truman Madsen slipped and said that Dan Jones was from Ireland, when in fact he was from Wales. Does that affect the message? Does not the BoM say that it contains the mistakes of men? If it does, then why not the primary manual?

[volgadon]

Because it is quite likely that Gethsemane did not mean 'the oil press' but rather 'the oil bank', should we throw out as worthless any work that contains the traditional etymology?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To be more accurate (as I'm sure you intended to be) what I have argued is that in KEP manuscript Ab2 (Frederick G. Williams) the words "I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record" have been inserted between the lines above and below, thus suggesting the distinct possibility that the phrase was not in the original "translated" text, but very possibly added afterwards.

The argument is based in text-critical analysis and forensic examination, and it is, I believe, quite indisputable. At least I have yet to see anyone dispute it beyond simply suggesting that I'm an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about. That kind of argumentation is acceptable to a certain kind of people, but much less so to others of a more discerning intellect.

Now that is interesting. I look forward to this to see what evidence there is.

[William Schryver]

Now that is interesting. I look forward to this to see what evidence there is.

Actually, other than the forensic analysis report that conclusively proves the over-writing arguments, I've pretty much presented all the evidence in the thread in the Pundit's forum that is now over two years old. Sorry you missed it back then.

Textual Variants at Abraham 1:12

[wenglund]

That is not the beauty of it to me.

It might not be for compulsive busy-bodies. But, for those of us with a modicum of humility, and who, to borrow Paul's metaphor of the body, pragmatically leave matters of the "head" to the "head", and matters of the "heart" to the "heart", and matters of the "arms and legs" to the "arms and legs", rather than having the "legs" mind the things of the "head", and so forth--recognizing that the body tends to work far better and more beautifully that way. (If you doubt this, try letting your feet do the work of the eyes, and vice versa, when next walking around.)

It is my concern and business to try to make sure that what I teach and preach to others (in this case, from a currently used manual) is something I believe to be good and true.

You clearly don't understand the role of "teacher", as opposed to curriculum designer, in the Church.

It matters even more when it involves my children. Interesting that you assumed the missionary was a son.

It isn't so interesting when one considers the odds. If I assumed incorrectly on that insignificant point, then I can live with that. Hopefully, you can too.

Finally, I have not been referring only to possible historical inaccuracies but also to the fact that the content itself is significant enough to warrant questions about its source.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that what you just claimed is "fact" (its not), then feel free to go to the source. Ask God if the BoA is what it claims to be (as per Moroni 10), and test to see if the precepts contained therein do for you as intended (as per Alma 32), and feel free to testify to your findings. That is YOUR role in the gospel. God's role, and the role of those he has chosen, is to determine what is to be taught in God's church. If or when you get to be a God or Goddess, or if or when you start your own church, then you will be in a position to decide for yourself.

Are you starting to get how things are designed to work?

Wherever those questions lead. My mistake (one of them) was bringing those questions here.

Actually, the only mistake is your lacking the humility to learn from those of us here who simply want what is best for you and your family. We see you starting to fail the test of faith, and we are simply offering you valid ways to pass.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

That is not the beauty of it to me.

It is my concern and business to try to make sure that what I teach and preach to others (in this case, from a currently used manual) is something I believe to be good and true. It matters even more when it involves my children. Interesting that you assumed the missionary was a son.

Finally, I have not been referring only to possible historical inaccuracies but also to the fact that the content itself is significant enough to warrant questions about its source. Wherever those questions lead. My mistake (one of them) was bringing those questions here.

FWIW mathilde, I think you may find it worthwhile to have a chat with Kevin Barney. He's a faithful Latter-day Saint who's very knowledgeable about the Book of Abraham. More importantly, he's well-respected by virtually everyone on both sides of the debate.

On this board, as I'm sure you've inferred by now, you're either an apologist or a critic. Sincere questions are typically met with ridicule, sarcasm, lecturing and condescension. Kevin rarely visits the boards, which may explain why he's so pleasant to talk to.

You may also be interested to know that I will soon be sending my own daughter off on a mission, and in a few years I hope that my sons will chose to serve missions.