Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[volgadon]

Don't forget "horror of a human being". Respectfully, that is.

[Calm]

Another article in a heretical magazine by John Gee referring to some perspectives on the BoA ending with a controversial conclusion of "Those who seek to know the truth of the book of Abraham will have to wait upon the Lord.": http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=975594bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

In the same magazine only valued by apologists and only stumbled upon by real TBMs, an article by the radical apologist Michael Rhodes that discusses the papyri and the difference in their time period and Abhraham's:

But if the text were on the same papyri, what is a text written by

[William Schryver]

Another article in a heretical magazine by John Gee referring to some perspectives on the BoA ending with a controversial conclusion of "Those who seek to know the truth of the book of Abraham will have to wait upon the Lord.": http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=975594bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

In the same magazine only valued by apologists and only stumbled upon by real TBMs, an article by the radical apologist Michael Rhodes that discusses the papyri and the difference in their time period and Abhraham's:http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=a8c1d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

And the final straw proving that magazine practically apostate, an article by the ultimate apologist Daniel C. Peterson discussing the BoA (but obviously avoiding the too difficult question of the age of the papyri): http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=19bd425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I have always maintained, and I continue to stand by this assessment: By simply reading both the official History of the Church and always faithfully reading through the Ensign magazine, I am convinced that I was exposed to at least 98% of those things that the critics claim are "hidden" from the membership of the church--long before I ever stumbled upon the FAIR website a little over four years ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have always maintained, and I continue to stand by this assessment: By simply reading both the official History of the Church and always faithfully reading through the Ensign magazine, I am convinced that I was exposed to at least 98% of those things that the critics claim are "hidden" from the membership of the church--long before I ever stumbled upon the FAIR website a little over four years ago.

I've said it before: It's remarkable that individuals who formerly couldn't be bothered to take the wrapper off the Ensign from month to month -- if they were subscribers at all -- somehow become voracious consumers of any and all things anti-Mormon.

[Deborah]

I've said it before: It's remarkable that individuals who formerly couldn't be bothered to take the wrapper off the Ensign from month to month -- if they were subscribers at all -- somehow become voracious consumers of any and all things anti-Mormon.

Amen!

[Calm]

Several of them mentioned the fact that the papyrus scrolls in question were not made my Abraham himself, but were simply Egyptian scrolls from a much later period that contained the story of Abraham.

I think a telling point is the way Joseph treated the scrolls. If they had been made by Abraham themselves, they would have been on par with the gold plates; yet Joseph treated them with a lot less reverence, not restricting view to only those deemed worthy and even allowing money to be charged for the viewing (directly contrary to the direction on how to treat the sacred writings of the plates, but not contrary to how the copies of the text were treated). Nor did others in their treatment of the scrolls seem to feel they were uncommonly sacred relics as an autograph would have been likely viewed.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think a telling point is the way Joseph treated the scrolls. If they had been made by Abraham themselves, they would have been on par with the gold plates; yet Joseph treated them with a lot less reverence, not restricting view to only those deemed worthy and even allowing money to be charged for the viewing (directly contrary to the direction on how to treat the sacred writings of the plates, but not contrary to how the copies of the text were treated). Nor did others in their treatment of the scrolls seem to feel they were uncommonly sacred relics as an autograph would have been likely viewed.

That's an interesting point that hadn't occurred to me.

[Mortal Man]

Where does 'central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ' appear in any church lesson manual?

Since calmoriah has insisted that Ensign articles constitute church doctrine...

the book of Abraham is a powerful, Christ-centered text... Jesus Christ was at the center of these pivotal episodes in salvation history... Abraham 1 becomes very much a Christ-centered text of scripture when viewed in the context of Abraham

[Mortal Man]

MM:

No it doesn't.

Let me repeat for emphasis: NO, IT DOESN'T!

One more time, just to make sure everyone heard clearly: NO, IT DOESN'T!!!

Once again Will, you have graced us with your impeccable reasoning, flawless logic, diligent research and careful presentation of the facts.

[Mortal Man]

I am quite comfortable with all of the above quotes.

Yes I know; it's quite easy to get comfortable once you're past feeling.

[Mortal Man]

Sooner or later, Mortal Man is bound to notice who wrote that Church News report of John Gee's presentation last year at the FAIR Conference, so I'll save him some trouble by making his rejoinder for him:

That article was written by Scott Lloyd, a reprobate "apologist" who is hardened in "iniquity" and "past feeling." (See the scriptural references MM gave as links in his response to my first post on this thread.)

Add on: Incidentally, the Church News is previewed each week prior to publication by Church Correlation. On another website, I just ran across a blog entry response written last November that falsely claimed otherwise. The anonymous author obviously did not know what he/she was talking about.

I read your article when it first came out and said to my wife, "I can't believe they let him publish that." Clearly the right hand of the Correlation Committee knoweth not what its left hand doeth. This sorry situation is a direct result of the competing factions among The Brethren, which unfortunately are taking a heavy toll on the rank and file. It's like when a mother says to her son, "no, you can't play video games" but then the father says "go ahead and play video games," the kid gets psychologically damaged.

BTW, did Skinner congratulate you on your Church News report ?

[volgadon]

Since calmoriah has insisted that Ensign articles constitute church doctrine...

Wow. I'm speechless. One of the most pathetic, desperate straw-clutching arguments I've ever seen.

First of all, you have tacitly admitted that the phrase 'central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ' simply does not appear in any of the lesson manuals regarding the BoA.

Second, of all your highlighted occurences of 'center', 'centered', or 'central' in that Ensign article, not a single one states that the BoA is 'central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ'.

the book of Abraham is a powerful, Christ-centered text...

The BoA centers around Christ, not the BoA is central to the restored gospel.

Jesus Christ was at the center of these pivotal episodes in salvation history...

Pivotal episodes in salvation history are centered around Jesus Christ, not the BoA is central to the restored gospel.

Abraham 1 becomes very much a Christ-centered text of scripture when viewed in the context of Abraham

[Mortal Man]

Wow. I'm speechless. One of the most pathetic, desperate straw-clutching arguments I've ever seen.

First of all, you have tacitly admitted that the phrase 'central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ' simply does not appear in any of the lesson manuals regarding the BoA.

Second, of all your highlighted occurences of 'center', 'centered', or 'central' in that Ensign article, not a single one states that the BoA is 'central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ'.

The BoA centers around Christ, not the BoA is central to the restored gospel.

Pivotal episodes in salvation history are centered around Jesus Christ, not the BoA is central to the restored gospel.

Abraham 1 is a Christ-centered text, not a text central to the restored gospel.

The covenant given to Abraham was centered in Jesus Christ, not the BoA is central to the restored gospel.

The central events of the plan of salvation weren't left to chance, not the BoA is central to the restored gospel.

The BoA shows the hope centered in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ was the same hope the ancient patriarchs and matriarchs had, not the BoA is central to the restored gospel.

[volgadon]

Ah yes, an ad hominem. It doesn't divert attention away from the fact that you failed to show where the lesson manuals or that Ensign article state that the BoA is central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. All you could show was that the article used the term central, BUT never in support of your accusation.

[Mortal Man]

Ah yes, an ad hominem. It doesn't divert attention away from the fact that you failed to show where the lesson manuals or that Ensign article state that the BoA is central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. All you could show was that the article used the term central, BUT never in support of your accusation.

http://www.youtube.c...w3QluWglGs&NR=1

[Anijen]

The evangelical world needs[Mortalman needs] to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will[he is] needlessly lose[ing] the battle without ever knowing it.

[volgadon]

And MM goes on to show that he has lost the battle.

[Scott Lloyd]

I read your article when it first came out and said to my wife, "I can't believe they let him publish that." Clearly the right hand of the Correlation Committee knoweth not what its left hand doeth.

Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about.

This sorry situation is a direct result of the competing factions among The Brethren, which unfortunately are taking a heavy toll on the rank and file. It's like when a mother says to her son, "no, you can't play video games" but then the father says "go ahead and play video games," the kid gets psychologically damaged.

You are living in a fantasy world. There are no such "competing factions" and you can cite no reliable evidence that there are. Apparently, absurd Scratchian mendacity has tainted your cognitive ability. Moreover, perpetuating such groundless gossip -- i.e. alleging disunity and discord among the Brethren where none exists -- is risky behavior for a Church member under covenant. I would advise you to reconsider it.

BTW, did Skinner congratulate you on your Church News report ?

This lame sarcasm reminds me that there is a question still on the table: What does Skinner think about you trying to pit his writings against Gee's remarks? Have you asked him?

And you have not responded to my CFR regarding your claims about the "official Church position" regarding the specifics in the translation of the Book of Abraham.

[mathilde]

In the hopes that this is a discussion and not a battle, I wanted to add an observation that the linked articles perhaps do not go far enough to counter the indication from the introductory paragraph to the book of Abraham and the various church manuals that the book of Abraham is important and central enough to be taught as part of the standard works. Just the fact that it is placed in a book called "Pearl of Great Price", for example. It is considered scripture. I don't think it is completely off base for members to want to know just how this scripture came about, and I think the ordinary church member would tell you that Joseph Smith translated directly, with inspiration from God, from papyrus scrolls that the church purchased and that the facsimiles directly illustrate the story of Abraham.

We still teach children in quite some detail about the facsimiles. Primary manuals (Primary 6, "Lesson 9: Jehovah Makes Covenants with Abraham,

[Mortal Man]

Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about.

I know that traditional conservative members of the Correlation Committee are defending the authenticity and value of the BoA, while radical left-wing progressive apologists (who shall remain nameless but are known to write for the Church News) are, like the young lady whom Joseph encountered, questioning its antiquity.

You are living in a fantasy world. There are no such "competing factions" and you can cite no reliable evidence that there are. Apparently, absurd Scratchian mendacity has tainted your cognitive ability. Moreover, perpetuating such groundless gossip -- i.e. alleging disunity and discord among the Brethren where none exists -- is risky behavior for a Church member under covenant. I would advise you to reconsider it.

This is called FUD.

This lame sarcasm reminds me that there is a question still on the table: What does Skinner think about you trying to pit his writings against Gee's remarks? Have you asked him?

I'm sure he'd be more interested in your Church News article than some obscure ramblings on a message board.

And you have not responded to my CFR regarding your claims about the "official Church position" regarding the specifics in the translation of the Book of Abraham.

Once again, since you seem to have missed it, here is the official Church position regarding the BoA:

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.

[Mortal Man]

In the hopes that this is a discussion and not a battle, I wanted to add an observation that the linked articles perhaps do not go far enough to counter the indication from the introductory paragraph to the book of Abraham and the various church manuals that the book of Abraham is important and central enough to be taught as part of the standard works. Just the fact that it is placed in a book called "Pearl of Great Price", for example. It is considered scripture. I don't think it is completely off base for members to want to know just how this scripture came about, and I think the ordinary church member would tell you that Joseph Smith translated directly, with inspiration from God, from papyrus scrolls that the church purchased and that the facsimiles directly illustrate the story of Abraham.

We still teach children in quite some detail about the facsimiles. Primary manuals (Primary 6, "Lesson 9: Jehovah Makes Covenants with Abraham,

[Mortal Man]

And MM goes on to show that he has lost the battle.

Did you watch the whole episode? I feel that Greg learns an important lesson about 'exact words'.

[Deborah]

In the hopes that this is a discussion and not a battle, I wanted to add an observation that the linked articles perhaps do not go far enough to counter the indication from the introductory paragraph to the book of Abraham and the various church manuals that the book of Abraham is important and central enough to be taught as part of the standard works.

No one who is discussing alternative translations is implying that the BOA isn't an important and central part of the standard works. But this is a different issue than saying the church rises or falls on it. It is meat that is added to the foundation we have in the Book of Mormon.

somewhere where questions about the church are not met with either glee that the church is not what it claims to be, or the sort of arrogance that appears on this site from time to time that if you don't understand that these questions have all been asked and answered it follows that you have never bothered to open up the Ensign before.

That is a rather offensive statement. Where is anyone saying with glee that the church is not what it claims to be? As to the latter part of this statement, when one hears new information he has a choice. He can either digest the new information and reconcile it or as some sadly have done throw out the baby with the bath water. Those of us you so blithely accuse of glee and arrogance have had our testimonies strengthened by realizing that new knowledge can only increase our understanding and build on the foundation of milk that we already have.

[Deborah]

I know that traditional conservative members of the Correlation Committee are defending the authenticity and value of the BoA, while radical left-wing progressive apologists (who shall remain nameless but are known to write for the Church News) are, like the young lady whom Joseph encountered, questioning its antiquity.

Why do you insist that all us radical left-wing progressive apologists are questioning the antiquity of the scrolls? Because they might have been transcribed by a later scholar doesn't make them any less ancient or valuable. Seriously you need to get some perspective. Scholarship increases our understanding and appreciation for the sacred documents we have. This is very apparent with the Joseph Smith Papers project and I suggest if you are so hyped up about this subject you not read any of those or listen to the documentary regarding this.

[Scott Lloyd]

Which brings me back to the original question of how what is officially presented at church on Sunday -- scriptures, manuals especially including the Primary manuals for children -- can leave quite a different impression than current FAIR thought, which for the most part is also prefaced with "FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice."

Whatever impressions one might gain from Sunday gospel study, I'm still scratching my head over the notion implied in your previous post that one should be "shocked" over the suggestion that the Joseph Smith papyri might not contain the original autograph from Abraham. Can a reasonable and faithful Latter-day Saint not hold simultaneously to the following ideas?

Point 1: The Book of Abraham is sacred writ and in fact part of the scriptural canon of the Latter-day Saints.

Point 2: Acting under the gift and power of God, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the papyri that came into his possession, just as he said and just as is taught in the Church.

Point 3: The actual writing penned by Abraham himself predated the Egyptian scrolls; one or more copies of Abraham's writing were handed down through the ages, and one such version came to Joseph Smith by means of the Egyptian papyri that fell into his possession.

Point 4: Point 3 does not contradict or conflict in any way with Point 1 or Point 2.

Point 5: The Church takes no formal position one way or the other on Point 3; therefore Latter-day Saints individually are free to entertain or embrace it as a theory and should not be condemned as "hardened" or "past feeling" for doing so.

Point 6: While the content of the Book of Abraham is considered sacred scripture by the Latter-day Saints, it is not necessary to know the precise details by which Joseph Smith brought it forth to believe in the authenticity of the book or in the truthfulness of Mormonism; in that sense, therefore, John Gee was correct in saying the Church does not rise or fall on the Book of Abraham.