Abraham And New D&c Seminary Student Manual

[Robert F. Smith]

What the Improvement Era did over 45 years ago was awesome. The follow-up, however, over the next half century, has been extremely lacking.

The Era did its job, and the scholarly press did its job -- and continues the debate even now.  What is "lacking" in that?  What's not to like?  Are you aware of what has been published over the these decades, and what is in the offing?  Do I need to recount it for you?

 

This manual cites the first clear official suggestion that theories other than the missing papyrus theory are viable,

Which theories would those be?

 

and that the papyrus text may not have a direct relationship to JS' inspired English text.

Which papyrus text might not have that direct relationship?

 

Unless you can find a reference showing this has been presented otherwise. Even if so, presented in a standard manual in favor of an article in a single magazine issue gives substantial institutional weight.

 

I believe this follows and is an extension (and explanation of) the separation of the Inspired Translation from the reception of the Papyrus Text in the new PoGP 2013 edition intro. Fascinating developments!  Again, it doesn't write off the Missing Papyrus theory, but makes clear that that "may" only be one possibility, leaving room for others. This is awesome, and highly commendable, IMO.

You are not the only person to become effusive over the reformulation of the PGP Introduction, while ignoring the same old heading being used at the Book of Abraham itself.  You may be reading a great deal into the text (and between the lines).

[David T]

 

and that the papyrus text may not have a direct relationship to JS' inspired English text.

Which papyrus text might not have that direct relationship?

 

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by David T

[Gray]

A step in the right direction, for sure:

 

I think this is the best and most frank summary of the issue:

 

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-1/

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-2/

[jkwilliams]

A step in the right direction, for sure:

 

I think this is the best and most frank summary of the issue:

 

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-1/

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-2/

Bokovoy is always a good read.

[Robert F. Smith]

There's a lot of reasons why a Missing Papyrus theory doesn't make sense to me, and why a 'New Inspired Pseudepigraphon original to Joseph Smith combining new light and knowledge/revelation, known Abraham traditions, Genesis, and thoughts on antiquity and recovered language' is far, far more compelling to me.

There are a number of people who hold that modern pseudepigraphal view.  My own analysis shows that, if a pseudepigraphon, it had to have been created in late antiquity by Jewish scribes in Egypt.  There is no other way to account for the accurate information we find in the PGP Book of Abraham, which was not available to Joseph Smith.  Moreover, if we go that far, it is also quite possible that those same scribes were merely transmitting an already extant text and illustrations. In for a penny, in for a pound, if we apply the law of parsimony.  See my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

 

I say this as one who views the Book of Mormon as a legitimate core ancient text with some substantial modern overlay introduced as part of the translation process.

I have no problem with the midrashic approach to the Book of Mormon, and I was first to mention it back in the 1970s in conversation with the late Wesley P. Walters (he agreed with me).  Blake Ostler takes it to its ultimate, expansionist expression in his "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue, 20/1 (Spring 1987), 66-123; cf. Grant Hardy, “2 Nephi 26 and 27 as Midrash,” FARMS Update #173, in Insights, 24/5 (2004), 2-3;  Robert A. Rees, “The Midrashic Imagination and the Book of Mormon,” Dialogue, 44/3 (Fall 2011), 44ff.

 

The Bible is full of old symbols and stories re-interpreted or appropriated and expanded, and given substantial new meaning to explain and illustrate contemporary understanding of God's covenant relationship to Israel in light of new occurrences and realities in history. It would be a very consistent biblical prophet-like thing for Joseph to do.

In his Ursprung und Geschichte der Mormonen: Mit Exkursen über die Anfänge des Islâms und des Christentums (Halle: Niemeyer, 1912), Eduard Meyer took much the same position on Joseph Smith:  He considered Joseph to be in the best tradition of OT prophecy, but that, of course, the OT prophets were really not speaking with God, but rather were part of an ancient tradition of prophecy as an ecstatic institution, which could be analyzed as a self-deluded and purely human function.

 

Which is fine, I guess, as long as Joseph doesn't come up with systematic material which no scholar of his day could possibly have known.  In the event, that is precisely the dilemma we face with Joseph -- he cannot possibly have come up with his ancient oeuvre by natural means.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

"However there are also passages, themes, topics, and concepts in all 4 standard works that are clearly eternal (or at the very least ancient) in origin."

 

Such as?

I presented a series of Book of Mormon examples on this board recently, at posts ##99, 147, 165, 176, and 178, online at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62832-the-exodus-did-it-really-happen/page-8 .

 

On the Book of Abraham, see my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at  http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham.

[Robert F. Smith]

A step in the right direction, for sure:

 

I think this is the best and most frank summary of the issue:

 

http://www.withouten...getic-war-pt-1/

http://www.withouten...getic-war-pt-2/

Bokovoy is always a good read.

He usually is, although in this case he got in over his head.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[stemelbow]

He usually is, although in this case he got in over his head.

 How so?

[Gray]

He usually is, although in this case he got in over his head.

 

I don't know about getting in over his head, but he seems to be the most reasonable and realistic voice on the matter I've heard

[stemelbow]

I don't know about getting in over his head, but he seems to be the most reasonable and realistic voice on the matter I've heard

 

After feeling a bit frustrated on the topic over the years he certainly sings a tune that is relatable. 

[mormonnewb]

 

Student/Home Study Manual:

Some have wondered how the Prophet translated the ancient writings. Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records, but he translated these writings by the gift and power of God. The Church, scholars, and historians continue to seek to better understand the origins of this book. As with all other scriptures, the greatest means of gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is through prayerful study of the book itself. For more information, go to  LDS.org , select Gospel Topics, and search for book of Abraham.

 

 

How is it possible that no one knows how JS translated the plates?  Did he write the BofA all by himself or did he have a scribe like when he translated the BoM?  If he used a scribe, then didn't that scribe tell someone how it was done?  We know a considerable amount about peep stones and hats for the BoM, how is it that NO ONE was interested in the BoA translation process?

Edited February 26, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Robert F. Smith]

 How so?

You will find my own comment at the site where his views were published, and which were cited by Gray.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know about getting in over his head, but he seems to be the most reasonable and realistic voice on the matter I've heard

Bokovoy is not to be toyed with.  He is a great scholar, and I have tremendous respect for him.  However, in this case I believe that he got it wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

After feeling a bit frustrated on the topic over the years he certainly sings a tune that is relatable. 

That may depend on the apriori views one brings to the debate.

[Robert F. Smith]

How is it possible that no one knows how JS translated the plates?  Did he write the BofA all by himself or did he have a scribe like when he translated the BoM?  If he used a scribe, then didn't that scribe tell someone how it was done?  We know a considerable amount about peep stones and hats for the BoM, how is it that NO ONE was interested in the BoA translation process?

Hey Newbie,

Of course he had scribes, and of course people told us how he did it.  I repeat my post #20 for you here:

 

Joseph’s claim was that he had translated the Book of Abraham from a papyrus in his possession.*  The mode of translation employed seems to have been an “Urim & Thummim” (so Orson & Parley Pratt, and Wilford Woodruff), which can include the use of a “seer stone,” of which Joseph had several.**  The current (2013) heading of the LDS Book of Abraham has "TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS BY JOSEPH SMITH," and "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands . . . ."  This is the same heading as in the 1981 edition.  See at https://www.lds.org/.../abr/1?lang=eng .

 

*  B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:476 (June 16, 1844); Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, II:130 n. 5; cf. HC II:236,350-351.

**  R. Van Wagoner & S. C. Walker, “Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing,” Dialogue, 15/2:48-68; cf. Joseph Fielding Smith,Doctrines of Salvation, III:222-226; Journal of Discourses, 21:47; Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, 35,59,68.

[BCSpace]

What the Improvement Era did over 45 years ago was awesome. The follow-up, however, over the next half century, has been extremely lacking.

 

There have been no new details to cause the Church to change it's position.  Essentially, BoA criticism is stuck in the dark ages of Dee Jay Nelson with endless variations on the same theme that have no effect on what the Church said in 1968.

[volgadon]

Bokovoy is not to be toyed with.  He is a great scholar, and I have tremendous respect for him.  However, in this case I believe that he got it wrong.

 

However, it is very commendable to see him soften his approach a little in his book.

[rameumptom]

That's not what I asked.  You seemed to suggest that the Book of Abraham must have an ancient origin because, by reading it, you could discern that it would be impossible for its "ideas" to have been "created" in 1835. 

 

But no one claims that the Doctrine and Covenants has any sort of ancient origin; it is from the 1820s - 1840s (as claimed by Joseph Smith himself).  So I am curious how your experience reading the D&C is different than reading the BoA as far as your impressions of when the "ideas" were originated. 

 

For me, one example is the description of the Urim and Thummim/white stone in D&C 130.  When you discuss the concept of a handheld device that lets you scan for all kinds of information and is protected by a key word/new name/password, it sounds very much like an IPhone today.  This concept then connects more into the teachings on the Interpreters in the Book of Mormon, where we are taught that a person needs to use caution to not look for things they ought not, just like we try to keep our kids from searching the Internet for porn, etc., today.

 

While it may not connect directly with ancient things, it does connect with modern things that were not available in Joseph Smith's day.

[rameumptom]

I still tend toward the catalyst theory for the Papyri, myself.  However, the Lord could easily have used methods within that method, including a midrashic translation, etc.

 

As it is, Joseph employed a catalyst for most of his revelations: the plates (which usually were covered, so he wasn't actually reading from them), the Bible translation, a fragment that the apostle John wrote and hid under a rock regarding his translation), etc.

[omni]

I still tend toward the catalyst theory for the Papyri, myself.  However, the Lord could easily have used methods within that method, including a midrashic translation, etc.

 

As it is, Joseph employed a catalyst for most of his revelations: the plates (which usually were covered, so he wasn't actually reading from them), the Bible translation, a fragment that the apostle John wrote and hid under a rock regarding his translation), etc.

 

Why do you believe Joseph needed a catalyst to translate the BoA, but not the Book of Moses?

[Gray]

For me the BOA is not based on any actual ancient writings. But it is definitely scripture in the same sense as the Bible. 

[jkwilliams]

I still tend toward the catalyst theory for the Papyri, myself.  However, the Lord could easily have used methods within that method, including a midrashic translation, etc.

 

As it is, Joseph employed a catalyst for most of his revelations: the plates (which usually were covered, so he wasn't actually reading from them), the Bible translation, a fragment that the apostle John wrote and hid under a rock regarding his translation), etc.

 

My only issue with the catalyst theory is that it rests on the belief that Joseph Smith had no idea what he was doing but believed, wrongly, that he was translating the papyrus. But, as far as the theories go, it's the only one that still hold any water, IMO. The text has other issues, of course.

[David T]

My only issue with the catalyst theory is that it rests on the belief that Joseph Smith had no idea what he was doing but believed, wrongly, that he was translating the papyrus. But, as far as the theories go, it's the only one that still hold any water, IMO. The text has other issues, of course.

 

Here's an account of my personal, pre-Mormon experience which tends to show why I tend to find Catalyst theories intriguing.

The Catalyst Theory: Or, How Marilyn Manson Caused Me To Write The Story of the Restoration.

[jkwilliams]

Here's an account of my personal, pre-Mormon experience which tends to show why I tend to find Catalyst theories intriguing.

The Catalyst Theory: Or, How Marilyn Manson Caused Me To Write The Story of the Restoration.

 

That's a great story. Thanks for sharing it. I believe that God often leads us where He wants us, and for some people, that's into the LDS church.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's a great story. Thanks for sharing it. I believe that God often leads us where He wants us, and for some people, that's into the LDS church.

God honors agency, which might mean He leads us where we are inclined to go at the moment, and that may or may not be the optimal place.