Change To The Explanation For The Book Of Abraham

[Scott Lloyd]

Possibly. However, it may also be true that no significant change has in fact taken place. Headings are interpretations, not part of the scriptural canon. They come and go according to the POV of certain committee members.

How is that even "possibly" true?

The header puts the catalyst theory and the missing papyri theory on equal footing. It doesn't jettison one or the other.

Or is there something I've missed?

[mfbukowski]

Maybe the catalyst theory has won/ No need for the "missing papyri" theory, The worki of Gee, Cook and Smith will no longer be relevant

I never saw how they were, really.

[mfbukowski]

Exactly.

Not that anyone listens to me, but I've been promoting this course of action since the autumn of 2006. It conforms to what we do and don't know about the production of the Book of Abraham.

It's really the only view that makes any sense as far as I am concerned. I have never had any problems with the BOA in my 34 years of membership even though I learned about the papyri in probably 1981 or so, precisely for these reasons. We don't have the papyri and even if we did, it wouldn't matter because Joseph received it by revelation.

Problem solved.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just double checked. JS's title said '...purporting to be the writings of Abraham.' The 'purporting' was eventually removed. In other words, the original header stated the translation text presented itself as the writings of Abraham. It allows for an inspired pseudepigrapha

The word "purporting" today carries a skeptical, almost cynical, connotation, akin to "claiming." I wonder if it was so back in Joseph Smith's day. Perhaps someone with access to an 1830s American dictionary could look it up for us.

[mfbukowski]

The word "purporting" today carries a skeptical, almost cynical, connotation, akin to "claiming." I wonder if it was so back in Joseph Smith's day. Perhaps someone with access to an 1830s American dictionary could look it up for us.

It's not that complicated!

purported

PUR'PORTED, pp. Designed; intended; meant.

Clearly you are right. The meaning has changed from "intended to be a translation..."

That makes it quite ambiguous and to me, opens it up wide to the interpretation that it is not literal. It is designed or intended or meant, to be the words of Abraham, but may not be literally what he said

Edited March 3, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Sky]

Perhaps if they would just get it right the first time there wouldn't be so much skepticism. I think many will see this as just another example in a long line of attempts at backtracking once cultural norms have changed or scientific evidence has challenged what we previously "knew". If we believe God communes with the prophets, why does he allow them to be so wrong for so long? When the correction does come, it is usually a murky subtle change (BoA, Laminates as principle inhabitants), or a "we don't know" (blacks and the priesthood, polygamy) or the church no longer has an official position (evolution).

This is a prevalent viewpoint among people already predisposed to view with skepticism anything the Church does. But it's not the only way.

The Church has indeed faced problems when the leaders have expressed an opinion, but isn't actual doctrine of the Church. Or how some have misinterpreted the doctrine. The Church itself has addressed this issue here. We're only human; we do the best we can, but sometimes we make mistakes. That includes the leaders of the Church. The amazing thing is that through it all, the Lord's work still manages to get done. It is ultimately His work that we are engaged in.

And I wouldn't exactly classify these changes as murky or subtle - they are available for everyone to see in detail. But maybe that's just me.

FWIW, Elder Anderson gave a talk in the last General Conference that really struck a chord with me:

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”

[cdowis]

Significant change. Clearly the notion of a translation of the papyri "containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham" was deleted.

I agree.

The word "containing" implies other authors/writings may have been present, and was deleted. For example, this glass contains water (as well as sewage, poison, etc)

The new wording is unambiguous, clarifying this was "the writings of Abraham," nothing else.

Edited March 4, 2013 by cdowis

[Pahoran]

So when you say "more accurate" do you actually mean "more ambiguous"? Do you feel the previous statement and the portion that changed ("A translation from some Egyptian papyri") was "less accurate" or perhaps even "inaccurate?"

(Can a statement be "partly accurate" and therefore "more" or "less" accurate? A statement that is accurate is "correct in all details" or "conforming exactly to truth." So the statement might now be "accurate" - but that means the old statement was "inaccurate". Here's a statement: "I am an English man." Accurate. I am a man and I am English. How about this: "I am a French man." Is that partly accurate or inaccurate? I am not French, but I am a man. Some might say it's partly accurate and only saying "I am a French woman" would be inaccurate as I am neither French nor a woman. But given "accurate" should mean "conforming exactly to the truth," perhaps there is no "more" or "less" about it. Are both the second and third statements simply "inaccurate.")

That's interesting. Your example statement contained two assertions: one true, one false. To me, that's 50% accurate, but you want "accurate" and "inaccurate" to constitute a binary solution set.

Okay, what will you do with a statement that contains three assertions? Five? Twenty? One hundred? If a statement containing 100 assertions has one factual error, is that statement 99% accurate, or do we apply your dichotomous key and call the whole thing "inaccurate?"

For some reason, believing Latter-day Saints are sometimes accused of "black and white thinking." Funny, that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

You quoted my post, but it appears you didn't comprehend it, assuming you even read it. I strongly disagree that the new header "brushed that work away." The new header is not at all inconsistent with their theories. It merely leaves the question open.

And I think it important to reiterate here that the new wording in no way vindicates those who claim the Book of Abraham is not a translation of ancient writing.

I read all of your quote and understood it. Don't know why I quoted it, sorry. Edited March 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[williamsmith]

Do we not have the source papyrus from which the facsimilies were lifted that are a part of the canon of Abraham?

The facsimiles are illustrative in nature, and certainly not alone in all known existing facsimiles in all their many interpretations, many designs etc. in relation to Egyptian antiquity The fact that Joseph or Abraham/scribes likely including it "among" parchments that could have included the writings of Abraham doesn't make them "sourced" with the BOA itself. There is little to no evidence at all that the "particular" parchments the Facsimiles were on also was the same parchment that contained the BOA itself. In fact, there is every evidence against this idea, not including what we now know for sure that the attached parchment being simply another book of breathings.

Further, for all we know it was Joseph himself who decided to use the Facsimiles for illustration in relation to Abraham and the revelations. After all, the book itself has nothing to do with the Facsimiles, no connection whatsoever. But Joseph did put the story into the fascimilees, and according to scholarship got some things right, even though existing scholarship had said he got it all wrong. More scholarship is only proving his actions, not debunking them.

So, because the BOA turned out not to be on the particular parchment that also contained the facsimiles doesn't really mean much. Sure, maybe by itself, but with other facts and evidence the BOA is still far from being dis-proven, quite the opposite in fact. Personally, I have no need of "made-up" things. If the facts were as anti-mormons claimed, I wouldn't be mormon. But, since they aren't, I'm forever mormon.

[halconero]

For years now I've read the different views of apologetics try to prove that the papyrI had something to do with Abraham and have watched Youtubes. How frustrating it must be that with the new heading it brushed that work away. Yesterday I listened to the Youtube of Mormon Challenges again. Where he was saying the bird was an angel. But according to Egyptologists it was the soul of the dead person. Because as is said, the papyri is a book of breathings. So now what's going to happen to this logic that the bird is an angel? I'm glad the church wants to be truthful but feel in this case it's where it might not be useful for some that have worked so tirelessly to prove it is what JS said it was. OTH, now the apologists who defended it being the actual papyri story can now rest from their labors.

In all fairness...can't the soul of a dead person also be an angel in LDS theology?

Also. I don't think this lays the issue to rest...I think that those who believe it was literal can still try to prove it. It just allows more leeway for those who choose not to.

Edited March 4, 2013 by halconero

[Tacenda]

In all fairness...can't the soul of a dead person also be an angel in LDS theology?

Yes, I did think of that.

[Senator]

The facsimiles are illustrative in nature, and certainly not alone in all known existing facsimiles in all their many interpretations, many designs etc. in relation to Egyptian antiquity The fact that Joseph or Abraham/scribes likely including it "among" parchments that could have included the writings of Abraham doesn't make them "sourced" with the BOA itself. There is little to no evidence at all that the "particular" parchments the Facsimiles were on also was the same parchment that contained the BOA itself. In fact, there is every evidence against this idea, not including what we now know for sure that the attached parchment being simply another book of breathings.

Further, for all we know it was Joseph himself who decided to use the Facsimiles for illustration in relation to Abraham and the revelations. After all, the book itself has nothing to do with the Facsimiles, no connection whatsoever. But Joseph did put the story into the fascimilees, and according to scholarship got some things right, even though existing scholarship had said he got it all wrong. More scholarship is only proving his actions, not debunking them.

So, because the BOA turned out not to be on the particular parchment that also contained the facsimiles doesn't really mean much. Sure, maybe by itself, but with other facts and evidence the BOA is still far from being dis-proven, quite the opposite in fact. Personally, I have no need of "made-up" things. If the facts were as anti-mormons claimed, I wouldn't be mormon. But, since they aren't, I'm forever mormon.

Well, that was an interesting response.

Thanks

[wenglund]

Since, as some here have astutely pointed out, the change is in the introduction, and doesn't alter what is said in the text or the headings, then one may rationally concluded that the change was intended to emphasize "inspiration" rather than a capitulation to doubts and debates about source documents.

However, people are free to interpret it however, either for purposes of hope or despair.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Helen47]

What would the reactions of you guys be if they dropped the facsimiles from the BOA?

[wenglund]

What would the reactions of you guys be if they dropped the facsimiles from the BOA?

I'll just have to wait and see when that never happens.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[RobertAC]

1981:

2013:

Any ideas as to what this could possibly mean? Is this a significant change, or simply a slight change in wording?

It seems to be part clarification of what the papyri are, and part evolution in the understanding of their role in the Book of Abraham.

Since their rediscovery, the view of the papyri seems to have moved from the original viewpoint that the story told in heiroglyphics was literally that of Abraham to one where this ancient spell book does not have an obvious reference to Abraham but which nonetheless has a hidden meaning that was rediscovered in the 1830s.

[RobertAC]

What would the reactions of you guys be if they dropped the facsimiles from the BOA?

I think it would cause a lot of needless headache. It would look like whitewashing of history and the exclusion of a part of the translation which Joseph Smith saw as important.

[cinepro]

What would the reactions of you guys be if they dropped the facsimiles from the BOA?

Who the heck would care beyond a few apologists and critics? When have they ever been referenced in a talk, lesson or Church publication? I doubt it would merit more than a passing observation, if even that, from 99.99% of Church members.

[canard78]

So, because the BOA turned out not to be on the particular parchment that also contained the facsimiles doesn't really mean much. Sure, maybe by itself, but with other facts and evidence the BOA is still far from being dis-proven, quite the opposite in fact. Personally, I have no need of "made-up" things. If the facts were as anti-mormons claimed, I wouldn't be mormon. But, since they aren't, I'm forever mormon.

I was interested to ask you about this last paragraph.

You are forever mormon, but wouldn't be if the critical claims were substantiated?

Are you saying your testimony is dependent on the foundational claims not being proven wrong by scholarly endeavors... Innocent until proven guilty?

I can understand that approach, but I find a risk in it. I consider the "jury to still be out" on the intellectual debate. It's most likely to be "hung verdict."

My perspective is that it's more important to embrace the principles and messages to be from inspired/inspiring sources rather than needing them to be proven historical document (or at least to be as yet unproven non-historical) to engage with them and their provenance.

But that's just one perspective...

[Tacenda]

Who the heck would care beyond a few apologists and critics? When have they ever been referenced in a talk, lesson or Church publication? I doubt it would merit more than a passing observation, if even that, from 99.99% of Church members.

True, before my faith crisis I'd never ever explored the deep subjects.

[rodheadlee]

What would the reactions of you guys be if they dropped the facsimiles from the BOA?

I would be highly disappointed.

[T-Shirt]

Who the heck would care beyond a few apologists and critics? When have they ever been referenced in a talk, lesson or Church publication? I doubt it would merit more than a passing observation, if even that, from 99.99% of Church members.

Yet in another thread you stated, "when it comes to faith crises in the LDS Church, one of the most common issues is The Book of Abraham", and then you go on to suggest the Church drop the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in order to help solve this problem. Now you are claiming that no one cares whether they are there or not. If 99.9% of the Church doesn't care and doesn't pay any attention to them, then why do you claim that so many people are leaving the Church over this issue and the Church should take drastic measures to remedy the situation?

[cinepro]

Yet in another thread you stated, "when it comes to faith crises in the LDS Church, one of the most common issues is The Book of Abraham", and then you go on to suggest the Church drop the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in order to help solve this problem. Now you are claiming that no one cares whether they are there or not. If 99.9% of the Church doesn't care and doesn't pay any attention to them, then why do you claim that so many people are leaving the Church over this issue and the Church should take drastic measures to remedy the situation?

It wouldn't be a "drastic measure". As far as I can tell, the only purpose they currently serve is to set up the expectation that Joseph Smith actually translated ancient Egyptian scrolls into English. So they serve no positive doctrinal purpose being in there, and they serve as a catalyst for some people to doubt the claims of Joseph Smith, so taking them out is a no-lose scenario.

And it's not just the facsimiles that I'm referring to when I say "one of the most common issues is The Book of Abraham", there are obviously other issues as well. Dropping the facsimiles is just one part of a solution.

[rongo]

It wouldn't be a "drastic measure". As far as I can tell, the only purpose they currently serve is to set up the expectation that Joseph Smith actually translated ancient Egyptian scrolls into English. So they serve no positive doctrinal purpose being in there, and they serve as a catalyst for some people to doubt the claims of Joseph Smith, so taking them out is a no-lose scenario.

And it's not just the facsimiles that I'm referring to when I say "one of the most common issues is The Book of Abraham", there are obviously other issues as well. Dropping the facsimiles is just one part of a solution.

Given the references to temple content in #2, I don't think "they serve no doctrinal purpose." You may roll your eyes and say condescendingly "I know Joseph Smith thought there was temple content in there, but really people . . ."

I would be mad if the facsimiles were dropped.