The Cinepro Solution For "The Book Of Abraham"

[cinepro]

The recent video "

" confirms my suspicions that when it comes to faith crises in the LDS Church, one of the most common issues is The Book of Abraham (at least for guys; I suspect polygamy is the deal killer for women).

There are several apologetic defenses for The Book of Abraham (BoA), all successful to varying degrees. Personally, I find each of them lacking in some critical regard. So I'm pleased to offer a solution for the Church to "The Book of Abraham" problem. It will probably take a while to implement, but if done correctly, I suspect the attrition rate for BoA doubters could be dropped almost to zero. I won't rehash the problems people have with the BoA; read up on it elsewhere if you're not familiar with it.

That being said, here's what the Church needs to do:

Take The Book of Abraham out of Egypt.

Step One: How many people do you know that have left the Church because of The Book of Moses? I've never met one. Yet the Book of Moses is longer than the BoA. It is just as "canonized" and official. It came forth only a few years before the BoA. It's actually quite similar. But no one cares about The Book of Moses. Why is that? Because the Book of Moses is just what it says it it. Joseph Smith was "translating" (or revising) the Bible and he gave us the Book of Moses. That's it. It survives (and is bulletproof) because it claims to be nothing more than a revelation from God.

That's what The Book of Abraham needs to become.

"Question: What is The Book of Abraham?"

"Answer: A revelation to Joseph Smith about the life of Abraham"

"Question: Where did it come from?"

"Answer: Joseph Smith received it through revelation while living in Kirtland in the 1830's."

"Question: But what about this story I heard about mummies and egyptian writing?"

"Answer: Joseph Smith had an interest in ancient and modern languages, including Hebrew, Egyptian, German and others. While his study of Egyptian in Kirtland may be related to the revelation on The Book of Abraham, in spite of speculation at the time, we don't know much about it."

See? It's that easy.

Step Two: Get rid of the facsimiles.

Immediately. Stop the presses, take them out. If the Book of Moses had this picture in it, we'd be screwed:

But it doesn't, and no one cares about The Book of Moses.

No one even cares about the facsimiles anyway. No one would miss them. File them alongside the other "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" and let someone bang their head against them. The only purpose they serve is for LDS to assume Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian, and then to get really freaked out when they find out he could only "translate" "Egyptian".

Now that the facsimiles are gone, you've got a few chapters of The Book of Abraham, revealed to Joseph Smith around the same time he was also involved in other projects like mummy collecting and speculative Egyptian translation, but doctrinally separate.

Problem solved. You'd still have a few die-hards carping about the mummy story 50 years from now, but you wouldn't have Church members freaking out about it.

This solution has the added bonus of not negating anything currently published by the Church or apologists about The Book of Abraham. Other than making the defenses almost totally unneeded, it doesn't contradict them. It just takes the issues about the papyrus and facsimiles off the table (and off the "shelf").

It would be like with the Priesthood Ban: "We don't know" might not be the most satisfying answer, but it can sometimes be the best one.

Edited February 22, 2013 by cinepro

[Brian 2.0]

Fun. And a good idea. But you'd still have Joseph Smith own statements about the purchase of the scrolls and JS himself indicating that they contained the writings of Abraham and that the BoA was translated from these scrolls.

Those quotes won't just go away. Anyone looking it up on the internet would see them, critical sources would use them, so questioning members would still find those statements and have to start down the rabbit hole from there.

[cinepro]

Fun. And a good idea. But you'd still have Joseph Smith own statements about the purchase of the scrolls and JS himself indicating that they contained the writings of Abraham and that the BoA was translated from these scrolls.

Those quotes won't just go away. Anyone looking it up on the internet would see them, critical sources would use them, so questioning members would still find those statements and have to start down the rabbit hole from there.

Yes, they will go away (or at least become irrelevant).

The problem isn't that the quotes exist. The problem is that the Church canonically ties the BoA together with the papyrus and facsimiles and uses those "quotes" as part of the official explanation for the BoA. This is what creates the cognitive trauma for Church members. It's when current teachings are so easily attacked.

If anti-mormons continue to argue for the traditional origin of the BoA using such quotes and old LDS sources, and then argue against it, that's fine, because that's what they've always done. One of the least effective arguments against the Church is to argue about a bit of history most LDS don't know about, and about which the Church officially says "Early leaders were fallible; we don't know."

[rodheadlee]

What do you think Heavenly Father thinks of that idea? Jesus Christ? Joseph Smith?

[Brian 2.0]

What do you think Heavenly Father thinks of that idea? Jesus Christ? Joseph Smith?

I think they are up beyond the firmament reading this thread going "That's it! Cinepro figured it out!" And now JS is writing and email to the COB but he can't figure out how to use tinyURL to copy the link to this page, but then he realized Steve Jobs is up there now so they sent someone to fetch him, because JS is using an iPad mini to send the email.

[wayfarer]

What do you think Heavenly Father thinks of that idea? Jesus Christ? Joseph Smith?

Heavenly Father: "Whew, I tried to get these guys to get it right, they finally did."

Jesus Christ: "Finally, they got rid of baggage that's destroying faith in my Church"

Joseph Smith: "Thank you, thank you, thank you...it's been so embarrassing all these years -- especially the God Min thing. Total freudian slip: I must have been influence by Min at least 33 times..."

Edited February 22, 2013 by wayfarer

[cinepro]

Additional note: See also D&C 7 where a hidden "parchment" from John the apostle is translated/"translated".

D&C 7

Number of people who have left the Church over Joseph Smith's translation of John's Parchment?

0

Maybe the BoA is translated from a hidden scroll somewhere, and the Kirtland papyri were just mistakenly assumed to be related? Fallible leaders - We don't know!

[rodheadlee]

Amen. AMEN. This is so right and would help so much. It might be useful to be more honest about Joseph's speculation. "Joseph Smith did indeed purchase ordinary egyptian funerary documents, thinking they were the Book of Abraham, written under Abraham's own hand. Initially, he tried to translate the egyptian characters, but instead of translating the actual characters, he created, through revelation, the BOok of Abraham. We don't know why the funerary scrolls triggered this revelation, but we do know that the result is revelation."

Then we need to get rid of a few more verses that revolve around the facsimiles...

Except, I want to make sure we keep the God Min in there...

What if that is not the truth? Do you expect them to lie to please people with no faith? I have faith when the whole truth comes out JS will be vindicated. How do you people get a TR anyways? Do you lie?

[Rivers]

I like this idea. I say submit it to Pres. Monson.

I have heard opinions expressed that are along these lines. Some apologists have said that its better to ignore the manner in which the book was transmitted and focus on the text itself.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Rivers

[ControlFreak]

What if that is not the truth? Do you expect them to lie to please people with no faith? I have faith when the whole truth comes out JS will be vindicated. How do you people get a TR anyways? Do you lie?

Nobody asks if you think the BoA is true. And that's hardly an appropriate question to ask him.

[wayfarer]

What if that is not the truth? Do you expect them to lie to please people with no faith? I have faith when the whole truth comes out JS will be vindicated. How do you people get a TR anyways? Do you lie?

the truth of the facsimiles is plain to see. game over.

i serve the truth, and so testify. what question in the tr interview would even remorely require acceptance if the BoA?

[canard78]

+1... agreed... Amen!

I'll be repeating myself a little as I discussed this on DB's thread ()

I love the content of the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses. They've given a great context to 'why' we are here - while the NT and Book of Mormon teach us 'how to be' while we are here.

I don't think there's much accurate translation going on. I'm comfortable with Joseph needing props to receive inspired writings. I'm ok with the idea that these aren't the original words of Moses, Enoch or Abraham.

I can understand why Joseph (or God) might have wanted to ascribe some radical religious concepts to the ancient prophets and it not be seen as 'new news,' but rather 'old news.'

[canard78]

What if that is not the truth? Do you expect them to lie to please people with no faith? I have faith when the whole truth comes out JS will be vindicated. How do you people get a TR anyways? Do you lie?

Wow... suggesting people lie to get a temple recommend... probably not appropriate board use.

Just because my faith is different to yours, does that make me a liar? I consider the Book of Abraham inspired and inspiring. I don't consider it a literal translation. I think cinepro/wayfarer ("you people") feel the same way. Where's the issue with the recommend questions?

Edited February 22, 2013 by canard78

[BCSpace]

There are several apologetic defenses for The Book of Abraham (BoA), all successful to varying degrees

For me, missing papyrus is a deal killer for virtually any criticism of the BoA and should be for any rational thinking person.

That being said, here's what the Church needs to do:

Take The Book of Abraham out of Egypt.

That part sounds reasonable and requires no actual changes and it is akin to what I already say.

However, regarding the facsimiles, it is an established archeological fact that the Egyptians covered up embarrassing history and the defeat of their gods by Abraham's God certainly fits the bill. It is quite plausible that the BoA facsimile interpretation is the original meaning of the events depicted whereas over time in Egypt, the meaning was changed to cover up the defeat.

Plus, you can't take them out now without there always being a hue and cry akin to the Lectures on Faith issue.

In addition, we should utterly reject the premise of these proposed changes, that we should be concerned one iota about the BoA causing people to leave the Church. God leads this Church (assuming an actual testimony) and the parable of the sower and the wheat and the tares are in full force. It is what it is.

Edited February 23, 2013 by BCSpace

[canard78]

Additional note: See also D&C 7 where a hidden "parchment" from John the apostle is translated/"translated".

D&C 7

Number of people who have left the Church over Joseph Smith's translation of John's Parchment?

0

Maybe the BoA is translated from a hidden scroll somewhere, and the Kirtland papyri were just mistakenly assumed to be related? Fallible leaders - We don't know!

D&C 7 is a great example.

Another is the record of John the Baptist in D&C 93. Apparently we'll get the full version when we're faithful enough.

18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.

And yet, the content of John's record is one of the most beautiful passages in the D&C:

7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;

8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

We are given this "...that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name..." (v.19). And it works.

Why does Joseph (or God) need to ascribe all this 'new news' to ancient prophets? I think Joseph knew very well why. Even in 1844 he recognised that he couldn't say "I have been told XYZ":

I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry “treason” and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

What he presents in King Follett is pretty radical stuff (like: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!")

By appealing to the ancient prophets (rather than claiming God told him), he's able to show that it's a restoration of truth and it becomes more acceptable (even if the words he shares were never actually said by the ancient prophets).

In the end, if it helps me "know how to worship, and know what (I) worship, that (I) may come unto the Father..." it doesn't really matter what the source was or publication process. As such, I group the BoA with the "revealed writings" of John the Beloved, John the Baptist, Moses and Enoch.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Personally, I love the Facsimiles. I love the (evil, pagan, blasphemous, primitive, polytheistic, embarrassing) Egyptiany stuff, especially the references to Ma'at and Isis. (Since I'm not in first grade anymore, I've never even gotten particularly giggly about Min.) The Facsimiles, poorly-reproduced as they are, were a major draw for me, since finally here was a Church with a (relatively) open canon that didn't downplay the clear debt to Egypt that both the Old and New Testament have.

I think Nibley and Rhodes and others have demonstrated that there is more going on in the Book of Abraham than critics have tended to give credit for. (Have you read One Eternal Round yet, or are you just bluffing your way through the written portion of your exam while sniffing airily about how obviously wrong the evidence you haven't examined is?) It wouldn't bother me to find out the entirety of the Pearl of Great Price was "just" inspired fiction or pseudepigrapha or targumim or whatever, but it's hardly the open-shut case that's been trending lately.

Also, I gotta put it on record yet again that I'm getting pretty exhausted of the patronizing embarrassment about the "flat-earth" in the Bible, with the constant, never-ending admonitions not to get bogged down in fundamentalist assumptions and the eternal condemnations of the primitive lack of sophistication that, y'know, also (probably just by coincidence) formed the basis for the precursors of western society for thousands of years. I would have absolutely no problem if we had a diagram something like this in our scriptures:

Or better yet -- 'cause it's way more artsy and dramatic and poignant and memorable, which should be exactly the point of teaching aids -- something like this one, which has a bit more of that "Northernness" that C. S. Lewis was so fond of:

Or even better still, maybe we could all do a little more research and realize that the "flat-earth" is (as Dechend and Santillana showed long ago) simply the square made by the four points of the solstices and equinoxes inscribed within the circle of the ecliptic, with the Axis Mundi being the sacred World-Tree Ladder to the North Star/World Nail supported by the Cosmic Mountain and surrounded by the "waters" Above and Below. (The separation of the Primal Parents Heaven and Earth being the falling-apart of the axes of the celestial equator and the ecliptic; the great "flood" which covered the "earth" being the chaotic time of change from one World-Age to another; the "Golden Calf" of Taurus leading to Moses' Two-Horned Aries, leading to Christ's Pisces, etc.)

Of course, if we stopped confusing ourselves with our own presentist assumptions and instead started trying to look at the ancient cosmology more like our ancestors did, ie:

... then we wouldn't get that nice pleasant frisson of modernist superiority, and where's the fun in that?

Edited to tone down the annoyed snark somewhat.

Edited February 23, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[William Schryver]

I consider the Book of Abraham inspired and inspiring.

I very much agree.

I don't consider it a literal translation.

How could you possibly know? Or, in other words, absent the original source text, upon what basis have you reached this conclusion?

As for myself, I have no reason at all to doubt that the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of an ancient document originally penned by the great patriarch himself. As one who has expended much effort and invested a rather substantial amount of time investigating the origins of the book (and also been fortunate enough to obtain access to all of the relevant source materials), I have yet to come across anything that has caused me to doubt the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

[T-Shirt]

One problem with this idea is that a couple decades from now, a new crop of doubters will appear and once they find the true history, the pattern will begin again, "The Church has sanitized history", We've been lied to.", "I feel so betrayed." , "The Church needs to come clean and stop lying to us.", etc, etc.

Edited February 23, 2013 by T-Shirt

[canard78]

I very much agree.

How could you possibly know? Or, in other words, absent the original source text, upon what basis have you reached this conclusion?

As for myself, I have no reason at all to doubt that the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of an ancient document originally penned by the great patriarch himself. As one who has expended much effort and invested a rather substantial amount of time investigating the origins of the book (and also been fortunate enough to obtain access to all of the relevant source materials), I have yet to come across anything that has caused me to doubt the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

Maybe I'd be better saying "I don't need it to be a literal translation and I think it probably isn't." I base that on having read a lot (perhaps not as much as you) from both perspectives. In the end we weigh up the evidence and make a choice. Isn't that we do with the very basics of religion. We choose to believe in God, based on the physical, emotional and spiritual evidences we have available to us. But you're right that "I can't possibly know" it is not literal. But then how could you "possibly know" that it is if I can't "possibly know" that it is?

Out of interest, do you consider D&C 7 and D&C 93 to contain literal translations/revelations of original (lost) documents from the hand of John the Beloved and John the Baptist? Or the Book of Moses?

If Joseph could reveal the writings/words of the ancients like Moses, Enoch, John and John with no "prop" I wonder why he needed to buy some egyptian oddities from a travelling circus.

Isn't it also plausible that these 'distillations' of eternal truths needed to be ascribed to ancient prophets to gain traction? I love the answers in each of these revelations. I still embrace them and follow them. But if I was forced into a corner of 'accept them all as historically accurate, literal translations or reject them, including their message,' I would find it difficult to still accept. This way is better for me. I doubt the official claims around origins while embracing the messages. I'm comfortable with them being taught from the pulpit as literal as I recognise that's more efficient and more impactful for a lot of people (or "more express" as the Lord seems to define this method of saying one thing, when the reality is another - http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.6-8?lang=eng#7).

I'm glad my membership isn't dependent on me having to accept the literal origins.

[William Schryver]

But then how could you "possibly know" that it is if I can't "possibly know" that it is?

I only said that I had no reason to doubt that it is what the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Out of interest, do you consider D&C 7 and D&C 93 to contain literal translations/revelations of original (lost) documents from the hand of John the Beloved and John the Baptist? Or the Book of Moses?

Again, I have no reason to doubt that they are exactly what the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed them to be.

... these 'distillations' of eternal truths ...

Your description of these things, not mine. Again, I have no reason to doubt that they are exactly what the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed them to be.

I'm glad my membership isn't dependent on me having to accept the literal origins.

I guess I am more concerned about my faith than I am about my membership.

In any case, I don't think we understand the same thing in relation to the phrase "literal origins," particularly when it comes to Joseph Smith's restorations ("translations") of ancient scripture.

[canard78]

One problem with this idea is that a couple decades from now, a new crop of doubters will appear and once they find the true history, the pattern will begin again, "The Church has sanitized history", We've been lied to.", "I feel so betrayed." , "The Church needs to come clean and stop lying to us.", etc, etc.

True... it would have to be done openly. I worry that 30 years members are going to sit up and say "what?! blacks once weren't allowed the priesthood??!" and leave. I hope the fact that 1978 declaration was a change of policy is always openly discussed. In fact I hope that eventually there will be an open apology.

[rodheadlee]

Wow... suggesting people lie to get a temple recommend... probably not appropriate board use.

Just because my faith is different to yours, does that make me a liar? I consider the Book of Abraham inspired and inspiring. I don't consider it a literal translation. I think cinepro/wayfarer ("you people") feel the same way. Where's the issue with the recommend questions?

I did not suggest. I asked an honest question. In my TR interview I was asked do I sustain JS as a prophet and seer. If no one wants to answer it's fine by me. I just don't get how people who do not believe feel righteous going to the Temple. If you don't feel the Church has the Authority to perform the ordinances they do, then why go? I'm not speaking to you personally just those that don't believe in the Authority of the Prophet, Apostles, Keyholders and the Priesthood.

If we start back pedaling on what we believe where will it stop? Yeah, lets give up the BoA and D&C 132 and what esle?

[canard78]

I only said that I had no reason to doubt that it is what the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

Again, I have no reason to doubt that they are exactly what the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed them to be.

Your description of these things, not mine. Again, I have no reason to doubt that they are exactly what the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed them to be.

Fair enough. I think "no reason to doubt" is a healthy phrase in matters of faith. I have no reason to doubt the impact of the principles taught in Joseph's writings. But I do have reason to doubt that they are exactly what he claimed them to be.

I guess I am more concerned about my faith than I am about my membership.

Same here. My faith and my interaction with God is far more important than membership. But, like you, I prefer to develop that faith and interaction as a member of the LDS church. As such, I'm aware that certain beliefs and practices would exclude me from doing so. I'm glad that belief in the historicity isn't one of them.

In any case, I don't think we understand the same thing in relation to the phrase "literal origins," particularly when it comes to Joseph Smith's restorations ("translations") of ancient scripture.

Out of interest, what do you consider my understanding of "literal origins" to be, and how would you describe or define your understanding of the phrase? I'm comfortable with the idea that we have a different definition of the phrase, I'm interested to understand yours.

I'm comfortable saying that the published words 'literally*' help me understand my place in life. They 'literally' help me create a personal understanding of God's nature and given me a reason "why" I should pursue a certain course in life, not simply how to follow it. As such they are 'literally' inspired and inspiring.

On the other hand, is the Book of Abraham's 'literal origin' an ancient document written by the 'literal' or 'actual' hand of Abraham that wound its way across the earth on a travelling circus? Are the facsimiles 'literal' drawings of Abraham's life? Are the Egyptian characters on the papyrus the 'literal' Egyptian words that now appear in the Book of Abraham? If an Egyptologist had the full papyrus, would they 'literally' translate the characters as the same words of the Book of Abraham?

All of the above is possible. But I doubt it. Others have also doubted it and, having got the impression that all of the above has been taught to them literally in church, they then reject the whole thing. Perhaps that's the fault of the teacher. Perhaps Joseph didn't intend it to be taught as a literal document and a literal translation, but that's the understanding of a lot of people in a Sunday School lesson at church tomorrow.

For me, I prefer to accept that perhaps Joseph or God attributed these profound truths (that was 'new news' for most people in 19th C) to old prophets like Abraham, Moses and John etc because he or He knew they would be unpalatable if they originated from the mouth of a 19th C revelator.

I say "Joseph or God/he or He" because I believe that while Joseph was almost certainly inspired in his published content, that some of it probably came from himself, but expressed in a way that still teaches and inspires.

*I mean 'literally' as in 'actually' or 'genuinely.' "adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression." The words "literally/actually/genuinely/as a matter of fact" make a difference in my life and my understanding of my place in the world.

[canard78]

I did not suggest. I asked an honest question. In my TR interview I was asked do I sustain JS as a prophet and seer. If no one wants to answer it's fine by me. I just don't get how people who do not believe feel righteous going to the Temple. If you don't feel the Church has the Authority to perform the ordinances they do, then why go? I'm not speaking to you personally just those that don't believe in the Authority of the Prophet, Apostles, Keyholders and the Priesthood.

If we start back pedaling on what we believe where will it stop? Yeah, lets give up the BoA and D&C 132 and what esle?

I don't want to give up the BoA. I love the BoA! Just because I see a different origin to you doesn't mean I reject the content.

I also don't want to give up the temple endowment. I consider it to be a brilliant ceremony, certainly inspired and inspiring. But I might have a different perspective to you of how we received the content of it.

If I believed Joseph was a manipulative fraud who created structures and processes to control other people then no, I don't think it would be appropriate to participate in the ceremonies and read and apply his publications. Why would I?

So to answer your question directly, when asked the TR questions I still answer them with sincerity.

There's no TR question about Joseph as prophet and seer - though if there were I'd be comfortable saying yes. Instead we're asked about restoration of the gospel and the living prophet:

Do I have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in the latter days? - Absolutely. The gospel of Jesus Christ has been beautifully distilled and articulated by the LDS church. That's why I remain an engaged member of it.

Do I sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator etc and sustain other GAs and local leaders? Yes (though my understanding of what that means may be different to yours).

I sustain Joseph and his successors as prophets and president of the church. I might not consider the role of a prophet to be the same as what you do. I also accept that sometimes prophets teach something as one thing when in reality it's another (Abraham's "sister" and even the Lord saying "(6) Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. (7) Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.)

So with that in mind, I'm fine with Joseph saying the Book of Abraham is a translation of the words of the great patriarch, when in actual fact it's the inspired understanding of Joseph. That might be considered a lie to some people. But to be a genuine lie the speaker needs to "intend to mislead." If people are being "well led" then no-one is "miss leading." It's just "more express" to do it that way.

[canard78]

I did not suggest. I asked an honest question. In my TR interview I was asked do I sustain JS as a prophet and seer. If no one wants to answer it's fine by me. I just don't get how people who do not believe feel righteous going to the Temple. If you don't feel the Church has the Authority to perform the ordinances they do, then why go? I'm not speaking to you personally just those that don't believe in the Authority of the Prophet, Apostles, Keyholders and the Priesthood.

If we start back pedaling on what we believe where will it stop? Yeah, lets give up the BoA and D&C 132 and what esle?

One other thing to mention (and sorry to cinepro for going a bit off topic).

You asked why go to the temple if there is doubt in the keys and authority to perform something like a temple marriage. The significance of belief in a temple marriage would hopefully be in the behaviour it engenders in this life rather than simply a hope for the next.

The church manual "Achieving a Celestial Marriage" focuses on our behaviour now. Today. The gift of a celestial marriage is it should give you the motivation to make it a really great marriage now (especially as you're planning to spend eternity together). Even if it turns out that it's not really for eternity, we've still hopefully been motivated to show more love, patience, compassion, service in our marriage... the purpose of our lives at the very core.

Naturally I hope my marriage is still eternal, celestial. My wife's no longer active so I'm not sure what the implications are to our marriage. Another topic for another day. But the important impact of the celestial marriage is in the "now," not in the unknown. Likewise, the impact of the teachings of the BoA is more important that whether it' really an original, historical document.