The Cinepro Solution For "The Book Of Abraham"

[mfbukowski]

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.

Well I think I agree with both of you- so there!

I just prefer to think fine nuances of the meaning of words like "literal" are often in the mind of the speaker and usually not communicated, and that slicing and dicing such words can become problematic and not worth arguing over.

[canard78]

And, it has been a valuable winnowing devise to separate the wheat from the tares, and separate those who trust in the arm of flesh over God.

So, it is not surprising to find men who seem particularly vulnerably to relying on men, seeking to counsel God about what to remove in relation to sacred scripture, and this in terms of elements that test one's reliance on God. In short, those who may be most prone to failing this particular test of faith, are the one's seeking to get rid of the test.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great idea. That'll be why the church puts the seer stones, head in hat, Mitchill theories, DNA evidences and the prophet's marriages to teenagers and other men's wives in such plain sight.

Maybe we should use these in the missionary discussions too. That way we wouldn't have all those tares joining and going innactive so quickly.

It's a shame that some people believe they are wheat beacause the aspects of the gospel and life that they struggle with are different to the ones that others do.

[canard78]

I know you are banned and can't respond but this is a cheap shot. Joseph used what he saw to derive inspiration from it. What the literal translation is, is irrelevant.

Clearly you know better than this. You have been playing with those bad boys on the other board again haven't you? Shame on you!

As a banned member he won't even be able to this, let alone reply.

For posterity... Does anyone know what his last post was? Was there a warning anywhere?

[canard78]

I don't advocate "changing the story".

If you love the facsimiles and consider them doctrinal, then great! No one's saying you can't. Giving someone the freedom to not believe something doesn't take away someone else's freedom to believe.

Right now, the way the BoA is presented in the Church sets up a bump-set for the anti-mormons to "spike". We're doing half their work for them. If we took away the "bump-set", the BoA would still be just as wonderful and inspiring and doctrinal and informative and canonized as it always has been (well, since it was canonized).

For me, the most damaging work being done against the Book of Abraham is the fact that apologists can't even agree on the most basic line of defense.

Having two weak theories regarding the origin of the Book of Abraham do not add up to one strong theory (especially when there is a third not-so-kind theory that seems to make more sense to some LDS).

If we can focus on the revelatory nature of the scripture totally independent of any of the Egyptological trappings, it makes these defenses unnecessary (but they can still be useful). While there will still be attacks against the BoA, their number and effectiveness would be roughly in line with the number of attacks on the Book of Moses. Which is how many...?

Much as I love the thought of making it 'like the BOMoses' I think it's a case of 'horse bolted - gate closed.' We waited too late.

If they did then it would only be another 'bump-set' in a few years to look back and cry 'sanitisation' - as is done with polygamy (and as appears to be happening with the 'mormons get a planet' doctrine).

[RobertAC]

Even a die-hard skeptic such as myself would likely be satisfied with your following question/answer statement:

"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."

I don't think you need to get into the Book of the Dead papyrus discussion. The Egyptian hieroglyphs simply do not mention anything about Abraham. However, if it is a revelation, it does not need to be linked to a particular document.

[T-Shirt]

Much as I love the thought of making it 'like the BOMoses' I think it's a case of 'horse bolted - gate closed.' We waited too late.

I find it somewhat ironic that those who complain the loudest about the Church covering up its past, are now advocating that they should do exactly that.

[mfbukowski]

As a banned member he won't even be able to this, let alone reply.

For posterity... Does anyone know what his last post was? Was there a warning anywhere?

I don't think there was. Of course we could get banned for discussing it. Oh well!

But yes, I did forget that he would not even be able to see it. Good point.

Edited February 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Great idea. That'll be why the church puts the seer stones, head in hat, Mitchill theories, DNA evidences and the prophet's marriages to teenagers and other men's wives in such plain sight.

Maybe we should use these in the missionary discussions too. That way we wouldn't have all those tares joining and going inactive so quickly.

This is not what I hear from the ark-steadiers, busy-bodies, and interlopers. They seem to be under the opposite impression--i.e. that faith is tested by the Church not actively disclosing those things, and they assume that were those things actively disclosed, all would be hunky dory. In other words, because they trust more in themselves than God, they have presumed to counsel the Lord and his Church and sought to get rid of that test, not unlike what I suggested above.

Perhaps you and the ark-stediers and possible tares should try and straighten this conflict out amongst yourselves so you can be of one mind when next you seek to counsel the Lord and his Church.

Leave me out of it because I am happy to humbly place such things (including the tests of faith) in the capable hands of God.

It's a shame that some people believe they are wheat because the aspects of the gospel and life that they struggle with are different to the ones that others do.

You may be right, though I don't know exactly who those "some people" might be.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 27, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I don't think there was. Of course we could get banned for discussing it. Oh well! But yes, I did forget that he would not even be able to see it. Good point.

From what I understand from those times that I have been banned, as long as the person isn't logged in under their user ID, and their cookies are deleted, the content of the board is still visible, though after several thread views they will be prompted to sign in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[noel00]

I notice Wade starts getting devotional when it comes to studying the facts of the origins of the BOA

[wenglund]

I notice Wade starts getting devotional when it comes to studying the facts of the origins of the BOA

I suppose that's better than being noticed as getting devolutional in that regard. :/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

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.

I have one that works for me, and I wonder if you've ever heard about it. It doesn't involve tossing out anything those with the keys teach as the truth.

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.

Then it would be less than it is now, though. Why throw out the truth to placate someone who can't handle the truth?

"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.

Blech. I'd rather stick with what I say now.

"Question: What is The Book of Abraham?"

"Answer: An inspired translation of some papers Joseph Smith got from someone, which were found in Egypt"

"Question: Where did it come from?"

"Answer: The papers were from Egypt, the inspired translation came from Joseph Smith as God inspired him to tranaslate."

"Question: But what about the different stories I hear which conflict with that explanation of how we got the Book of Abraham?"

"Answer: We're not required to agree with people who don't agree with what God has told us.

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.

I actually like that picture and can explain it without having to toss out anything those with the keys teach as the truth.

No one even cares about the facsimiles anyway.

I do.

No one would miss them.

I would.

File them alongside the other "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" and let someone bang their head against them.

They can bang their head against them now, where they are, if they want to.

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".

You're trying to be funny now, aren't cha.

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.

Eh. No need to go through all of that rigamarole.

Let's just keep things as they are now while including that picture for the Book of Moses. I like it.

[cinepro]

Hmmm....there's a new Introduction for the Book of Abraham. Can anyone notice the change?

The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/introduction?lang=eng

[wenglund]

Hmmm....there's a new Introduction for the Book of Abraham. Can anyone notice the change?

The word "inspired" was added.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

The word "inspired" was added.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's the original:

The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning 1 March 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. (See History of the Church, 4:519–34.)

Edited March 1, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Dang, I totally called it! Here's what Don Bradley said somewhere else:

Far from this being a step to the book's deletion from the canon, or a weakening of its canonical status, it is a step made to defend the book's scriptural status by untying it from the papyri. Thus Latter-day Saints can think what they will of the papyri but the Book of Abraham's authenticity can still be affirmed.

Don

[DonBradley]

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.

Cinepro,

Fascinating thoughts! I think you are right that these would be effective ways to prevent (many) people from losing faith in, and over, the Book of Abraham. And the first of them has happened already.

Are you trying to prove yourself a prophet?

Don

[wenglund]

I think you are right that these would be effective ways to prevent (many) people from losing faith in, and over, the Book of Abraham. And the first of them has happened already.

If people's faith is saved in that way, I am not sure it is a good thing, or a lasting thing. If people's faith rests on what is written in an Introduction, rather than resting in God (Moroni 10 and Alma 32), then the faith that is save thereby may then be lost once they read the Chapter headings, or explanations in the facsimiles.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

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.

 

Except that there is something wrong with deliberate attempts to obscure or divert attention away from relevant and salient historical facts.  Spin and repackaging seem distinctly less than divine.

On the one hand, the church is ostensibly asking the public to investigate the church with an eye toward assessing the truthfulness of the restoration narrative and the accompanying distinctly literalistic theology.  Let the word investigate sink in.  Admonitions to "search  things out in ones own mind" abound as if reason and evidence played as big a role as prayer when seeking revelation.

But, the history of the BOA, the claims Joseph made about it in terms of translation and the Egypt angle, the simple and straightforward understanding of the origins of the BOA and the facsimiles consistently adopted over the decades by members and prophets alike form a context and constellation of clues to the main question: Is the church true?

 

Why don't people deserve those clues in undiluted form? 

I found those clues to be essential and telling so I am grateful that they did not escape my attention. (Of course, despite being a curious and studious person who attended a decade of seminary, college religion classes and numerous church education weeks (a thing in the 70's), I still had no idea of the main issues surrounding the BOA until I already had my PhD and then one day randomly stumbled across some Hugh Nibley apologetics in one of the libraries at Purdue University. I sometimes wonder if reading that apologetic right there and then wasn't ironically the solvent that destroyed my belief.)

 

It seems that we are continually asked to sort of ignore and forget the past incarnations of the church and directed to notice what a fine and inspired organization the "modern" church is "now".  It is finally a mature church and we can safely igonore troubling practices and beliefs from the past.  I was more or less encouraged to think along those lines even back in the 60's and I did indeed think it was the church as it existed at that moment that mattered for my testimony. Out with the old prophets and doctrines and in with the new.

But the past is nothing but a sequence of such nows and presumably the church was just as true then as it is now. It certainly has always been advertised as such.  It pays to realize that the "modern church" will be the "old church" in time and I can only imagine what might be obscured from the sight of future investigators or what they might be subtly encourged to ignore about the church circa 2015. Maybe the stance on gay marriage? Certainly unthinkable from this vantage but....

 

As an afterthought I might observe that "simple failure to mention" is a strategy for spin and long term management of public opinion that has a superficial plausible deniability but still leaves an unpleasant odor as it were (like the realtor who says "but you never asked me if the house had a cracked foundation").  For example, facts about polygamy weren't just left out of most correlated church material for decades, but studiously left out.

 

So your solution is not an admirable one but it is exactly what I expect.

[mfbukowski]

I have one that works for me, and I wonder if you've ever heard about it. It doesn't involve tossing out anything those with the keys teach as the truth.

Then it would be less than it is now, though. Why throw out the truth to placate someone who can't handle the truth?

Blech. I'd rather stick with what I say now.

"Question: What is The Book of Abraham?"

"Answer: An inspired translation of some papers Joseph Smith got from someone, which were found in Egypt"

"Question: Where did it come from?"

"Answer: The papers were from Egypt, the inspired translation came from Joseph Smith as God inspired him to tranaslate."

"Question: But what about the different stories I hear which conflict with that explanation of how we got the Book of Abraham?"

"Answer: We're not required to agree with people who don't agree with what God has told us.

See? It's that easy.

I actually like that picture and can explain it without having to toss out anything those with the keys teach as the truth.

I do.

I would.

They can bang their head against them now, where they are, if they want to.

You're trying to be funny now, aren't cha.

Eh. No need to go through all of that rigamarole.

Let's just keep things as they are now while including that picture for the Book of Moses. I like it.

Dang it dude, I am behind you 100%.   It's a red-letter day!

[mfbukowski]

Cinepro,

Fascinating thoughts! I think you are right that these would be effective ways to prevent (many) people from losing faith in, and over, the Book of Abraham. And the first of them has happened already.

Are you trying to prove yourself a prophet?

Don

Don, what's new about this?

 

To me this is just the "catalyst" theory.  Look at the "Inspired Translation" of the Bible?   Whole chapters added?  Positive statements turned into negative ones by inserting a "not" thereby totally reversing the meaning of some passages?

 

No one even blinks!   I have never understood the "problem" of the Book of Abraham.  I have never had a problem with it.

 

But keep the facsimilies!  They enormously increase my understanding of the endowment.

 

Edit: oops - I just realized this is an old thread- your opinions may have changed by now.

Edited March 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Don probably won't answer...don't know why Tarski felt he needed to practice thread necromancy here...thought we had one of these much more recent..

"Dang it dude, I am behind you 100%.   It's a red-letter day!"

Would have been if it didn't take you two years to get with it.

[mfbukowski]

Except that there is something wrong with deliberate attempts to obscure or divert attention away from relevant and salient historical facts.  Spin and repackaging seem distinctly less than divine.

On the one hand, the church is ostensibly asking the public to investigate the church with an eye toward assessing the truthfulness of the restoration narrative and the accompanying distinctly literalistic theology.  Let the word investigate sink in.  Admonitions to "search  things out in ones own mind" abound as if reason and evidence played as big a role as prayer when seeking revelation.

But, the history of the BOA, the claims Joseph made about it in terms of translation and the Egypt angle, the simple and straightforward understanding of the origins of the BOA and the facsimiles consistently adopted over the decades by members and prophets alike form a context and constellation of clues to the main question: Is the church true?

 

Why don't people deserve those clues in undiluted form? 

I found those clues to be essential and telling so I am grateful that they did not escape my attention. (Of course, despite being a curious and studious person who attended a decade of seminary, college religion classes and numerous church education weeks (a thing in the 70's), I still had no idea of the main issues surrounding the BOA until I already had my PhD and then one day randomly stumbled across some Hugh Nibley apologetics in one of the libraries at Purdue University. I sometimes wonder if reading that apologetic right there and then wasn't ironically the solvent that destroyed my belief.)

 

It seems that we are continually asked to sort of ignore and forget the past incarnations of the church and directed to notice what a fine and inspired organization the "modern" church is "now".  It is finally a mature church and we can safely igonore troubling practices and beliefs from the past.  I was more or less encouraged to think along those lines even back in the 60's and I did indeed think it was the church as it existed at that moment that mattered for my testimony. Out with the old prophets and doctrines and in with the new.

But the past is nothing but a sequence of such nows and presumably the church was just as true then as it is now. It certainly has always been advertised as such.  It pays to realize that the "modern church" will be the "old church" in time and I can only imagine what might be obscured from the sight of future investigators or what they might be subtly encourged to ignore about the church circa 2015. Maybe the stance on gay marriage? Certainly unthinkable from this vantage but....

 

As an afterthought I might observe that "simple failure to mention" is a strategy for spin and long term management of public opinion that has a superficial plausible deniability but still leaves an unpleasant odor as it were (like the realtor who says "but you never asked me if the house had a cracked foundation").  For example, facts about polygamy weren't just left out of most correlated church material for decades, but studiously left out.

 

So your solution is not an admirable one but it is exactly what I expect.

Oh my friend Tarski!

 

The truth itself is an evolving thing.  It is not "out there" but "in here". Even science is "in here". It's observations that work for a time, then our needs change, and so does our interpretation of the "data".  It evolves by "natural selection".  It works for a while and then the "environment" changes- we as humans need something better- an improvement in some gizmo or the solution to a problem, and so we get to work and come up with something that works better.  It's evolution in action.  What "is" actually evolves because we need it to solve our problems which are always changing.

 

It's not that Newton wasn't "true" - it's just that humanity itself had advanced and so needed more solutions, and needed new "answers"  so developed them

 

Same for religion.  Jesus said that kingdom of God is within us, and it is.

 

The message evolves along with our needs, but it just builds on what we know is "true", just like science.  The golden rule will always be true, but should it apply to gay marriage, say?   Or is that a different case?   A new problem needs a new solution and a new position or interpretation of an old one will come out eventually.

 

The process is the same because that is what humans do- create worlds out of matter unorganized.  We organize new interpretations of the world and our purpose in the universe.

 

THAT is what we do!

[mfbukowski]

Don probably won't answer...don't know why Tarski felt he needed to practice thread necromancy here...thought we had one of these much more recent..

"Dang it dude, I am behind you 100%.   It's a red-letter day!"

Would have been if it didn't take you two years to get with it.

Ooooo!  Got me!

 

I just don't have time to keep up with these posts-

Edited March 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

My solution is much simpler and allows us to keep everything intact:

 

Simply realize that the Egyptians were famous for erasing embarrasing history, such as Abraham's victory over their gods.  Hence it is not unreasonable to think that the Egyptians changed/warped the meaning of the images in the facsimilies and hence the difficulty in matching the current interpretations with extant scripture.