New Gospel Topic Entry Re Boa

[Rob Osborn]

Why do you consider it a safe assumption that the BOA is historically accurate? Why should history ever be an assumption?

 

It sounds as if you're concerned that members will lose belief in the spiritual teachings of the BOA if they choose to view the scripture as something other than historical. So while the catalyst theory may help keep some members believing in the short-term, it may lead to greater disbelief in the long. Is that accurate?

 

If so, I kind of share your feeling. I work with the youth in my ward and in my exprience it's rather tough to say to them, "look, we don't know how or why the book came to Joseph, but it's really really important to follow it's teachings." The youth/young adults want to know why. They appreciate the church's honesty in saying "we don't know" in regards to, pick your issue - BOM translation, BOA translation, blacks/priesthood, women/priesthood - but in the long run that honesty doesn't keep them in the church. They want answers. They want a prophet who actually gives prophesy and can provide answers the world cannot. The more we say, "we don't know," the more they respond, "so why should we care?"

 

And that's the feeling I get from the BOA essay. I'm fairly ignorant of the BOA issues (at least for this board), so I can't parse whether the statement is blatently omitting some key information here, or is making a misrepresenation there. For me, reading through the statement, my overall impression was, "so why should I care about the BOA again?" I'm worried that I'm not alone and the trend is accelerating. If the BOA still "works" as scripture even if its not a real translation and not real history, does a catalyst BOM also work? What about a catalyst Christ? Maybe there never were nephites and never was a resurrection. It's just a ll stories to provide - in the words of the BOA essay - "important information" and "saving truths."

The statements made show the solidarity of the church on the matter. Whereas we do not have the actual document from which the translation was taken from we have external evidences showing the validity of the text itself. Its amazing to me that pretty much on any topic you can get opposing views on anything. Its where we get our information that matters though. If I want to find people who oppose the BoA there are plenty. But truth is, you can find people who belive the moon landing was a hoax or that 9-11 was a government inside conspiracy. The bottom line is thst when properly researched, there is absolutely no evidence that the BoA is a hoax. So, we thus assume, just luke the BoM that it is true until proven otherwise. The BoA has withstood the tests of time to this pount.

[Thinking]

The bottom line is that when properly researched, there is absolutely no evidence that the BoA is a hoax.

 

In other words, interpret the facts to fit the premise.

[Brian 2.0]

The bottom line is that when properly researched, there is absolutely no evidence that the BoA is a hoax. 

 

NO TRUE EVIDENCE goes against the BoA.

[AndyDnom]

We haven't reached the 'tons of baptisms' stage yet, but when things go from one set of missionaries teaching 0-2 lessons per week to four sets of missionaries each teaching 12-20 lessons per week, a significant shift has occurred, and I will be surprised if the conversions don't follow. And all this in a city that I can only describe as previously hostile to our message.

 

To what do you attribute this change?

[Hamba Tuhan]

To what do you attribute this change?

 

I honestly think the simple answer is D&C 88:73.

 

I think it also helps that every single leader in our ward is committed to obeying and implementing the council of prophets, the area presidency, and our stake presidency. As we have acted in simple faith that this council is inspired, we have found that it simply works. In my ten years in this ward, for example, our average sacrament meeting attendance has exactly tripled, most of the growth in the past 3-4 years.

 

I think it also helps, as Bro Bukowski already suggested, that the Saints in these parts have overwhelmingly chosen to stand up for and defend the values God has revealed to us. As families, churches, schools, and individuals fall apart and as society around us decays, a number of survivors are seeking refuge in Zion -- and expressing it in roughly those terms.

 

But mostly it just seems miraculous to us. Something is definitely afoot, and it is far, far bigger than I can explain.

[Rob Osborn]

In other words, interpret the facts to fit the premise.

Only those who say its a hoax have the bad information and are misled. The arguments for it being legitimate stand on solid ground.

[Tacenda]

Is Nauvoo polygamy next on the list of essays?

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tacenda

[CA Steve]

Only those who say its a hoax have the bad information and are misled. The arguments for it being legitimate stand on solid ground.

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

 

An actual translation of a document that was written by Abraham on the papyri that Joseph Smith purchased in 1835?

A translation of a document that resembled something Abraham wrote but was not an original?

An inspired work that was based on something Abraham taught and believed but never wrote down, and is based on what scribes wrote a thousand years later?

An inspired work that had nothing to do with the papyri Joseph Smith purchased but none the less represented beliefs that Abraham held but were never recorded?

 

Or?

 

Do faithful members have to share your view of what constitutes a "legitimate argument" to be on solid ground?

[CurrentlyAlive]

There is also time given to the Missing Papyrus Theory, connections with Abraham stories of antiquity (which, they do acknowledge in a footnote that "Some of these extrabiblical elements were available to Joseph Smith through the books of Jasher and Josephus. Joseph Smith was aware of these books, but it is unknown whether he utilized them." - one thing they don't mention is that contemporary and popular 19th Century american Masonic lore had a lot to say about Abraham and Priesthood that has substantial and strong parallels with the Book of Abraham story - this has a been a topic of a growing number of recent Mormon Studies papers and recent books as of late).

 

David, can you please point me to those Mormon Studies papers or books you are talking about?  I'd really like to know more about that.

[cinepro]

We are also having tons of baptisms in our ward, far exceeding expectations.

 

Can you define "tons" in this context? 

 

I've never heard of a ward or mission tracking baptisms by weight (it's always been by headcount), so if you've adopted a new system, please convert it to the traditional one for those of us still using the older method.

[JDave]

Can you define "tons" in this context? 

 

I've never heard of a ward or mission tracking baptisms by weight (it's always been by headcount), so if you've adopted a new system, please convert it to the traditional one for those of us still using the older method.

Is that a "fat" joke?

[cinepro]

Is that a "fat" joke?

 

[Buckeye]

Can you define "tons" in this context? 

 

I've never heard of a ward or mission tracking baptisms by weight (it's always been by headcount), so if you've adopted a new system, please convert it to the traditional one for those of us still using the older method.

 

It's a pilot project to increase baptism stats.  I've heard good things about it from wards in the US.  It's not as effective in wards outside the states. 

[Rob Osborn]

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

 

An actual translation of a document that was written by Abraham on the papyri that Joseph Smith purchased in 1835?

A translation of a document that resembled something Abraham wrote but was not an original?

An inspired work that was based on something Abraham taught and believed but never wrote down, and is based on what scribes wrote a thousand years later?

An inspired work that had nothing to do with the papyri Joseph Smith purchased but none the less represented beliefs that Abraham held but were never recorded?

 

Or?

 

Do faithful members have to share your view of what constitutes a "legitimate argument" to be on solid ground?

Lets apply this same thing to the translation of the BoM. Thats what we are really after. We do not have within our viewing pleasure the actual golden plates from which the BoM was translated just as we do not have within our possession the actual papyri that JS translated the BoA from. We take the BoM to be a true historical record translated by the power of God through a holy prophet. So, we should also take the BoA to be the same. Its legitimate on this same grounds. Of course though, if you are anti-mormon then of course you will never see this point.

[Brian 2.0]

...just as we do not have within our possession the actual papyri that JS translated the BoA from. 

 

debatable. 

[Rob Osborn]

debatable.

Whats to debate? Everyone knows we do not have "all" of the papyrus that Joseph Smith used to translate the BoA. How can you deabte it if you are lacking the number 1 evidence?

[Thinking]

Whats to debate? Everyone knows we do not have "all" of the papyrus that Joseph Smith used to translate the BoA. How can you deabte it if you are lacking the number 1 evidence?

 

Some people assume that we do not have the papyrus that Joseph Smith used to translate the BoA, even though the papyrus that we do have has evidence on it that it was the papyrus used for the translation.

[mfbukowski]

Can you define "tons" in this context? 

 

I've never heard of a ward or mission tracking baptisms by weight (it's always been by headcount), so if you've adopted a new system, please convert it to the traditional one for those of us still using the older method.

It's all due to the American Fast Food diet. We have decided to put the obesity problem on our side for statistical purposes.

We just have ice cream socials every Sunday, and our numbers go through the roof.

[mfbukowski]

Lets apply this same thing to the translation of the BoM. Thats what we are really after. We do not have within our viewing pleasure the actual golden plates from which the BoM was translated just as we do not have within our possession the actual papyri that JS translated the BoA from. We take the BoM to be a true historical record translated by the power of God through a holy prophet. So, we should also take the BoA to be the same. Its legitimate on this same grounds. Of course though, if you are anti-mormon then of course you will never see this point.

Dang. I just gave Rob Osborn a rep point. What's this world coming to??

[Brian 2.0]

Whats to debate? Everyone knows we do not have "all" of the papyrus that Joseph Smith used to translate the BoA. How can you deabte it if you are lacking the number 1 evidence?

Some people assume that we do not have the papyrus that Joseph Smith used to translate the BoA, even though the papyrus that we do have has evidence on it that it was the papyrus used for the translation.

 

What thinking said...

 

yes, we don't have all the papyri, but a case can be made that the papyri we do have was used in the translation based upon the facsimile on the found papyri and the characters on the found papyri being included in the margins of some of the BoA manuscripts.

 

There is evidence, pretty decent evidence, presented to support the theory that the found papyri were used in translation process.

 

Hence... your statement is debatable.

[theplains]

One part says, "Much like the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s translation of the book of Abraham was

recorded in the language of the King James Bible. This was the idiom of scripture familiar to early

Latter-day Saints, and its use was consistent with the Lord’s pattern of revealing His truths “after

the manner of their [His servants’] language, that they might come to understanding".

 

Did the early Latter-day Saints and non-Mormons around them speak in the manner of King

James English or was it is done so the Book of Mormon would have a greater chance of being

accepted?  

 

When reading the Book of Mormon, you discover that it is mostly not in the KJV tone.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

 

[omni]

One part says, "Much like the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s translation of the book of Abraham was

recorded in the language of the King James Bible. This was the idiom of scripture familiar to early

Latter-day Saints, and its use was consistent with the Lord’s pattern of revealing His truths “after

the manner of their [His servants’] language, that they might come to understanding".

 

Did the early Latter-day Saints and non-Mormons around them speak in the manner of King

James English or was it is done so the Book of Mormon would have a greater chance of being

accepted?  

 

When reading the Book of Mormon, you discover that it is mostly not in the KJV tone.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

Makes one wonder why OD1 and OD2 weren't written in "the language of scripture"?

[Teancum]

That's right - while the new Seminary Church History manuals provided room for the Catalyst theory, I believe this is the very first official correlated Church publication to explicitly lay out the Catalyst theory as an acceptable option. Orthodoxy just got expanded. Catalyst theory can be officially taught as an option in Church courses with an authoritative source to back it up. This is awesome.

Sure. When the prior claims of an actual translation don't hold up expand the options. Works every time!

[Teancum]

I think it is safe to assume that the book of Abraham is an authentic historical record translated by Joseph Smith. The Lords church has a strange way of testing peoples faith and blessing those who hold fast to the iron rod alone. Let us hold fast to the BoA as just another step of the rod of iron and press forward saints.

So let me see....the church had taught the claim made by Joseph Smith that he actually translated the BOA from papyrus. Now that there is evidence that it was likely not an actual translation the church tosses out the option that maybe the papyrus was a catalyst for revelation. Or it could be one or the other we just aren't sure. Yes indeed, I agree this is very strange. And absurd to the point of incredulity. You really think this is all just some test?

[Teancum]

Good for the defenders, who can champion the divinity of the record without binding the Latter-day Saints to one theory or another about how it came forth.

 

Bad for the critics, who tie their attacks to an inflexibly held theory.

Sure it is always nice to have many options when one is trying to defend the indefensible. Shame on some members for believing what the church and JS himself taught about the BOA translation.