Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[mathilde]

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.

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.

First, it was never my argument that the "church rises or falls on it". I am specifically talking about impressions about the traditional translation of the book of Abraham that the average Church member would understandably have from attending church with scriptures and manuals in hand.

And I was not referring to this particular message board when I wrote about those who react to questions about the church with glee. There are other message boards not particularly friendly to the church, those boards are the reference there.

Where do you go with questions? Here, or there? Where do you find clear, direct answers free from the agenda of either bashing the church or supporting it no matter what?

[Vance]

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

Speaking from experience?

[Vance]

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

WOW!!!

You say that just after you grace us with this presentation in support of your argument?

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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

This is a falsehood. I do not question the antiquity of the Book of Abraham. I believe wholeheartedly that it was penned by Abraham himself and translated by Joseph Smith from the Egyptian scrolls that came into his possession.

And I again reject your gossip-mongering about "factions" among the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (which constitute the Correlation Committee of the Church).

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

I've not heard from Andrew Skinner about my Church News article, nor do I have any reason to believe he would be particularly concerned about it. On the other hand, it is you who have endeavored publicly to pit his earlier-written Ensign piece against John Gee's comments at last year's FAIR Conference. And you are doing it without Skinner's knowledge, it would appear.

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

See also the INTRODUCTORY NOTE in the Pearl of Great Price (it's in your triple combination).

None of which contradicts the theory that the Egyptian scrolls may have contained a copy, rather than the original autograph, of the Book of Abraham. Thus, your prior assertion is false about what is the "official Church position."

The vast majority of members accept the plain meaning of these statements, notwithstanding the efforts of a few jaded apologists to twist the meaning of the words. Some people would say that it's risky behavior for a Church member under covenant to publicly undermine official statements in the Standard Works.

No official statements are being undermined here. The things being undermined are your own dogmatic conclusions, your gossip about "factions" among the Brethren, and your error in claiming an "official Church position" where there is none.

[Deborah]

Where do you go with questions? Here, or there? Where do you find clear, direct answers free from the agenda of either bashing the church or supporting it no matter what?

I think Fair is a good place to go. At least you get reasoned discussions on the very topics the critics are using to condemn the church, and by people who still have their testimonies. Some things you just have to table. I have found that when I find things that seem to contradict what I know spiritually, to rely on the spiritual confirmations and let the matter rest until more information is available. In this way I have had many questions eventually answered and my testimony continually strengthened with the added knowledge.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think Fair is a good place to go. At least you get reasoned discussions on the very topics the critics are using to condemn the church, and by people who still have their testimonies. Some things you just have to table. I have found that when I find things that seem to contradict what I know spiritually, to rely on the spiritual confirmations and let the matter rest until more information is available. In this way I have had many questions eventually answered and my testimony continually strengthened with the added knowledge.

From mathilde's post, I gather that she is uncomfortable with the disclaimer that appears on the FAIR Web site. What one needs to understand is that there are plenty of questions for which answers have not been revealed by the Lord or on which the Church has taken no formal position. On such things, the reasoned analysis and theory of intelligent, knowledgable and faithful Latter-day Saints might be the best information available for now.

[cinepro]

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?

Do you think some Church members might be confused by the notation that the Book of Abraham is "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you think some Church members might be confused by the notation that the Book of Abraham is "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.

[cinepro]

If it was a translation of a copy of Abraham's original autograph, it would still be a translation of ancient records. And in fact, that's all that can be stated with any certainty at this point. So changing future editions as you suggest would be highly premature.

I think this whole situation is a case of the Church wanting to have its cake and eat it too.

[David T]

I think it was Nibley who pointed out it was a shame that the current edition of the heading to the Book of Abraham was altered from what the original Times and Seasons publication said: "A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, Written By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus"

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it was Nibley who pointed out it was a shame that the current edition of the heading to the Book of Abraham was altered from what the original Times and Seasons publication said: "A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, Written By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus"

I'm with Nibley on that. I think that's a better way to state it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this whole situation is a case of the Church wanting to have its cake and eat it too.

How so?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this whole situation is a case of the Church wanting to have its cake and eat it too.

I think it's a case of critics being grumpy over what they thought was a devastating attack being blunted by plausible explanations and theories.

[Mortal Man]

Do you think some Church members might be confused by the notation that the Book of Abraham is "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.

[volgadon]

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

Your entire line of reasoning shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd suggest the following:

"The book was written by the ancient prophet by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. His words, written on papyrus, were quoted and abridged by a Jewish redactor. The record gives an account of two great civilizations: the Chaldeans and the Egyptians. After thousands of years, all of Abraham's papyri were destroyed except one copy, and it is among the original Joseph Smith papyri."

Which of course is consistent with your general pattern of drawing unfounded conclusions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your entire line of reasoning shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

Actually, Sheriff Andy Taylor is a far wiser sage than either Dad or Mom Brady.

[cinepro]

I think it's a case of critics being grumpy over what they thought was a devastating attack being blunted by plausible explanations and theories.

Totally.

Just curious, but in the history of the Book of Abraham, have you ever heard any explanations or theories put forth by the Church or apologists that you would consider implausible?

[Scott Lloyd]

Totally.

Just curious, but in the history of the Book of Abraham, have you ever heard any explanations or theories put forth by the Church or apologists that you would consider implausible?

I can think generally of only two theories from apologists (it's my impression that the Church itself remains silent on the matter), and I don't regard either as implausible, though I favor one over the other.

[Mortal Man]

Which of course is consistent with your general pattern of drawing unfounded conclusions.

I just think it's important to study the scriptures.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just think it's important to study the scriptures.

While not reading into them what isn't there.

(Incidentally, I caught the snide allusion to the previous version of the Book of Mormon introduction, if that's what you're worried about.)

[Mortal Man]

Too bad that volgadon pwnd you.

I can't get "[owned]" by volgadon until he explains to us what lesson Greg Brady learned from his parents about 'exact words' (hint: it's summed up neatly in once sentence by his father).

[Vance]

I can't get "[owned]" by volgadon until he explains to us what lesson Greg Brady learned from his parents about 'exact words' (hint: it's summed up neatly in once sentence by his father).

"can't"?

You already were!

[volgadon]

I can't get "[owned]" by volgadon until he explains to us what lesson Greg Brady learned from his parents about 'exact words' (hint: it's summed up neatly in once sentence by his father).

I have never watched an episode of the Brady Bunch, and, frankly, have no interest in doing so.

You are trying to hide the fact that your argument was beyond weak, that it has no standing, that nowhere, not even expressed in other words do we find that the lesson manuals or the Ensign article state that the BoA is central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

In other words, stop playing games. You lost the battle.

[cinepro]

I think it was Nibley who pointed out it was a shame that the current edition of the heading to the Book of Abraham was altered from what the original Times and Seasons publication said: "A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, Written By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus"

In what way could it be said the records were "purporting" to be the writings of Abraham?

If the original version were restored, they should just be clear and say "purported by Joseph Smith to be the writings of Abraham", at which point you can see why the language was changed in the first place.

Although church manuals would be infinitely more interesting if they peppered "purported by Joseph Smith" throughout, just in case.