Is Fair Trying To Offload The Book Of Abraham?

[robuchan]

It will probably come as a surprise to many that I do not have a testimony of the Book of Abraham.

Wow, that's interesting coming from the person known as the leading LDS apologist on the subject.

[Freedom]

Wow, that's interesting coming from the person known as the leading LDS apologist on the subject.

What he actually says:

It will probably come as a surprise to many that I do not have a testimony of the Book of Abraham. That is, I have never received a spiritual confirmation of the truth of the Book of Abraham. I do not need one. I have those for the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the gospel, the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the continuation of those keys and authority through the present day. If you have these things confirmed to you, you do not need to get a cold from every wind of doctrine that blows. It does not matter what some Egyptologist says about the papyri. You might be perplexed for the present, but you have already proved God in days that are past.

I can honestly say that I have never received a spiritual confirmation that the book is true and I have never sought one. I can say the same for the gospels, the book of Genesis and the primary president. I have met my son's physics teacher and I saw him do wonders with math and I do not need to have confirmation that he knows each and every possible formula that the course curriculum requires. I know my wife loves me and I do not need to investigate each and every action she takes to confirm if it is out of love or some other perhaps malicious intent.

To date, I have not seen any compelling evidence that the book is false, the only debate is how it came to be simply because nobody knows. We don't know how the earth was created but this does not mean it is false. Nobody can dispute the content so when you set aside the desperate attempts at knocking down the book, it rings true. I think this is where Happy's criticism of science can be applied - lack of evidence in science means it is not true or cannot be proven. The book of Abraham, like the Book of Mormon, lacks a source document that can be property dated and translated independently. Thus, we must rely on our faith. Nevertheless, scrutiny of the text through the scientific method (an approach that the critics refuse to attempt) produces significant evidence of its truthfulness.

[DavidB]

my goodness you people are ruthless or extremely overly sensitive to someone expressing an opinion or both.

Gee spends whatever unnecessary amount of time covering theories (not sure if they are his theories or not) of the Book of Abraham, yet all one need read is the final paragraphs. He admits he does not have a testimony of the BOA says he does need one. He also suggests that we would do just fine without the BOA.

The doing fine w/out the Book could be construed as a veiled and preliminary effort to distance oneself from the Book.

A lack of testimony could be interpreted as non-belief. And givien that Gee's position is we would be ok with it, that tends to suggest nonbelief.

Edited August 21, 2012 by DavidB

[altersteve]

Wow, that's interesting coming from the person known as the leading LDS apologist on the subject.

But he goes on to clarify that what he meant was that he hasn't received a spiritual confirmation of its truth. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe it.

[CASteinman]

So, if the book were disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt (through time travel even), and Joseph Smith admitted that he made the whole thing up, and the book proven to be a complete phony, you would still believe it to be authentic?

Not if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

How is one supposed to argue with that line of logic and/or complete lack of critical thinking?

There is no arguing with it. Absolutely none. In fact, when anti-Mormons start to argue about the Book of Mormon or peep stones or Joseph Smith being a philanderer --- I can get interested. But when they start going on about how Joseph Smith didn't know Egyptian and the Book of Abraham came from the Book of Breathings and so on ... I just get glassy over that... its not the least bit interesting because those silly objections are not relevant to me at all.

[CASteinman]

A lack of testimony could be interpreted as non-belief.

Maybe .. if he had expressed it that way, but what he actually says is the opposite.

[DavidB]

Maybe .. if he had expressed it that way, but what he actually says is the opposite.

Now you semi concede Happy's point and offer your own opinion on the matter. Thank You.

[CASteinman]

Just as long as you know that I am at the top, that is all you need to worship my wonderfulness.

This is how I explain it: "I am very easy to get along with as soon as you learn how to worship me properly".

(Now you will see what I mean about not being up to speed with you. I can only respond to jokes! When you are serious, I have a hard time keeping up. I think maybe the same of Volgodon. I might agree with you or disagree with you, but I am not sure because I am left in your dust.)

[CASteinman]

Now you semi concede Happy's point and offer your own opinion on the matter. Thank You.

I have no idea what you are talking about, really.

But ...

1. I am still rejecting Happy's statement.

2. Yeah.. its my opinion. Like it is my opinion that this: "T" is the letter T. Is an opinion and a perception. But its also a fact.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[happy]

I have no idea what you are talking about, really.

But ...

1. I am still rejecting Happy's statement.

How weird to reject a non-existant statement. I also reject your statement that my brain is made of Jello.

[CASteinman]

How weird to reject a non-existant statement. I also reject your statement that my brain is made of Jello.

The weird thing is that you even deny making the statement. Its on the board (unless you have edited it away). Its post #1 There is no response to flat out denial of the obvious.

I have not said anything about your brain. You are now accusing me falsely on top of everything else.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[rpn]

So the answer to the original question of whether FAIR is trying to offload the book of abraham because someone spoke at a FAIR conference who said he hasn't received spiritual confirmation, and doesn't need one in order to have a full testimony of the gospel, would be "NO"?

I wonder why the OP thinks this board speaks for FAIR, or that FAIR agrees with everything every presenter says at a conference, or even knows in advance what the presenters will present at the conference such that anyone could claim some sort of approval of the ideas, as well as opportunity to present the ideas?

[altersteve]

Happy, you said John Gee admitted he doesn't believe in the Book of Abraham. As CASteinman has asked of you multiple times now, please prove it or retract your claim. That's the rule around here.

[Freedom]

A lack of testimony could be interpreted as non-belief. And givien that Gee's position is we would be ok with it, that tends to suggest nonbelief.

The two are not related. If you have been to Quebec City, you would have a testimony of the regions culture and society. You would not need to travel to St Josephs to receive confirmation, your experience in Quebec City would suffice. And not traveling to St Josephs would not mean you are of the opinion it does not exist. You could say you have never been to St Josephs but you still accept it for being rich in French Canadian culture from your experience in Quebec. You are applying a definition to testimony that is not justified. I am of the opinion that we could do without all the writings of Paul and still be ok; this does in any way suggest non-belief, just that we have sufficient doctrine in other books to render his writings superfluous.

In life, we accept many matters at face value because of our past experience with related matters. We do not approach each experience, no matter how unusual, as if they are completely unfamiliar and in need of careful scrutiny. I have been to many public swimming pools so if I go to yet another one tomorrow, I will be quite certain of the temperature of the water, and the degree of enjoyment I might have. There are a number of public pools I have never visited in Vancouver, but I do not need to receive a personal witness of each pool to accept them for what they are. This is the point of the quote.

The final two paragraphs confirm this idea:

Abraham actually uses this reasoning in the second chapter of the Book of Abraham. So at this point in the Book of Abraham, he’s had only one experience of God to go on. This is the second time that God has actually spoken to him and when God asks him to do something difficult, he replies to God, “Thou didst send thine angel to deliver me from the gods of Elkenah, and I will do well to hearken unto they voice.” [Abraham 3:13]

It’s not for nothing that Abraham is the father of the faithful. Abraham is willing to trust God on the basis of one experience. Those of us who have made covenants with God have done so one the basis of experiences with Him. We can have faith in Him, that is, trust Him, because we have tested Him in some things. I trust God. I’m not always able to do that with some of my colleagues, and I do not trust dissenters and anti-Mormons. I’ve had too many experiences with all of them to change any of that.

For someone who does not belief the book is true, he certainly provides a powerful affirmation of its truthfulness.

[CASteinman]

Its OK... I don't think anyone cares... and its not useful in anyway... I retract all my CFR's. Done with that.

CFR is redacted... removed. To all mods and all posters... it is gone and I encourage everyone to simply ignore that whole issue. It was not useful in anyway.

No point in making Happy feel he is in a box either. I earnestly say ... let it slide.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[Robert F. Smith]

I was curious about FAIR's position on the Book of Abraham and came across John Gee's recent talk on the Book of Abraham. As you know, I am concerned that people are requiring permission from Science to be faithful.

http://www.fairlds.o...raham-i-presume

As I read this transcript, it appears he is trying to make a case that we can just drop the Book of Abraham and admits he doesn't even believe in it.

Is this the new apologetic course? Eject the Book of Abraham cause it takes a lot of effort to defend it? Will the Church also be convinced to denounce and toss it aside? Will the new scriptures drop the Pearl of Great Price.

How odd!! I attended his lecture, took copious notes, and did not get the same impression you just did. So, in looking at the transcript of his talk, I see exactly the same words he spoke at the recent FAIR annual meeting. None of those words expressed disbelief in the Book of Abraham, nor did he suggest that we throw the Book of Abraham under the proverbial "bus." In fact he did a creditable apologetic job of defending the BofA.

I know of another PhD in Egyptology (in SLC) who is mystified that so many people adopt without question the assumption that the Book of Abraham is pure hokum. He can't see it and neither can I. I'd sure appreciate your explaining to me what in his lecture led you to believe that he had adopted the view that "he is trying to make a case that we can just drop the Book of Abraham and admits he doesn't even believe in it." Or that the LDS should simply "Eject the Book of Abraham cause it takes a lot of effort to defend it." I just don't see it there.

[Ron Beron]

Everyone here seems to be looking into the thought processes of Bro. Gee. Maybe it would be better to let him talk for himself and not read too much into his written work minus the vocal intonations and stresses.

[Freedom]

Its OK... I don't think anyone cares... and its not useful in anyway... I retract all my CFR's. Done with that.

The facts speak for themselves. I think it is more an issue of poor use of words rather than intentional misdirection.

[Pahoran]

How weird to reject a non-existant statement. I also reject your statement that my brain is made of Jello.

He's not rejecting "a non-existant [sic] statement." He's rejecting this statement:

As I read this transcript, it appears he is trying to make a case that we can just drop the Book of Abraham and admits he doesn't even believe in it.

I've read the portion you seem to be alluding to (with thanks to USU78) and I do not see him "trying to make" any such "case." I flatly deny that he "admits he doesn't even believe in it." He says that he doesn't have a spiritual testimony of it, which is not the same as belief, and in fact goes on to confirm that he does believe it.

So it is perfectly legitimate for CA to ask you to produce the evidence upon which you base your conclusion.

I think we should let that matter rest with the understanding that you have defaulted on your CFR. You have produced no evidence because you have none. You formed an impression, probably based upon a hasty reading, that does not stand up to scrutiny.

And the notion that FAIR is some kind of "hive mind," and that a remark at the end of a presentation somehow reflects a FAIR policy rather than the speaker's own view, is downright silly. If FAIR wanted to distance itself from the BofA, the simple way to do that would be to talk about something else, instead of inviting prominent speakers to defend it.

Which is, in case you haven't read the transcript to which you link, what he actually does.

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

The Bigger than Jesus Syndrome. What do I mean? When a perfectly reasonable statement gives rise to indignation, all because someone focuses on what he thinks the words should mean, rather than what was being said.

[Glenn101]

Mr. Gee seems pretty clear that the Book of Abraham does not matter, though he acknowledges its influence

Doctor Gee, to me, was saying that obtaining a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Abraham is not necessary. He had obtained a testimony of the restoration, of Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration, and of the Book of Mormon.

I agree with that assessment. I have recieved a like conformation. But I have not received an express spiritual confirmation of the Book of Abraham nor the Doctrine and Covenants. But I believe that they are true because they flowed from the revelations of the prophet Joseph Smith.

Doctor Gee does believe that the Book of Mormon matters, judging by his comments about what we would not have if the Book of Abraham had never come forth.

Glenn

[DavidB]

...

And the notion that FAIR is some kind of "hive mind," and that a remark at the end of a presentation somehow reflects a FAIR policy rather than the speaker's own view, is downright silly. If FAIR wanted to distance itself from the BofA, the simple way to do that would be to talk about something else, instead of inviting prominent speakers to defend it.

....

Regards,

Pahoran

you lack imagination, the best way to enter ones own message into the masses is to discuss the message in such a way that minds can differ on the intent of the message...plausible deniability.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mr. Gee seems pretty clear that the Book of Abraham does not matter, though he acknowledges its influence

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, unless by wish-fulfillment. I met and talked to two anti-Mormons at the FAIR Conference and neither of them appeared to believe that Gee had made any such claim. Indeed, Gee was adamant on exactly the opposite point:

"Now, why should we care about the Book of Abraham? Well, we need to understand why the Book of Abraham is important. The Book of Abraham is not like the Book of Mormon. It has no equivalent of Moroni’s promise. It is not a sign of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, but it has had a deep and lasting impact on Latter-day Saint culture to an extent that many things in LDS culture would not exist if it were not for the Book of Abraham. So this is a map of the plan of salvation showing the principle scriptural sources for each section down below. [Gee showed on screen the Plan of Salvation] As you can see, the distinctive parts of the map for Latter-day Saints are based on different passages. And there’s more than one passage for each portion except only the Book of Abraham deals with the preexistence. Now there are other scriptural passages dealing with the preexistence, but these can be narrowly construed. For example, Moses 4 only discusses the preexistence of Jesus and Satan. We are not mentioned. Only the Book of Abraham includes all those who live on earth, have lived on earth, and will live on earth as having an existence before this mortal birth. So the Book of Abraham is really the book of scripture that gives us our ideas about the preexistence and these ideas permeate latter day saint thought. They are very distinctive."

Taking statements out of context is, according to non-Mormon biblical scholars, "text abuse." Why do you do it?

[Pahoran]

you lack imagination, the best way to enter ones own message into the masses is to discuss the message in such a way that minds can differ on the intent of the message...plausible deniability.

Ah, so it's a conspiracy, is it?

Well, given the fact that minds can always "differ on the intent of the message," even in ways that are completely unrelated to what is said -- witness this thread -- I suggest that no conspiracy is necessary to bring that about.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

How odd!! I attended his lecture, took copious notes, and did not get the same impression you just did.

I was there as well and did not get the impression at all that he disbelieved the BOA. His point was that the BOM is key to accepting Joseph Smith and the restored gospel. The BOA is not, but that's what the critics focus on because they haven't been able to disprove the BOM. There is no question in Gee's mind that the BOA is of divine origin. But it is the BOM on which the testimony of the church rests and if one has that then it follows that Joseph's other works are likewise from God.