What Are The Main Arguments Against The Book Of Abraham

[stemelbow]

I view the Parrish quote as referring to how Joseph translated, not what.  That Joseph thought he was translating through inspiration from heaven does not alter the record that he also thought he was translating the actual papyri. 

Possible.

That's exactly what the Chandler certificate indicates. Joseph said he gave Chandler a translation of the papyri. Chander certified the translation (of "the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession") was correct.  I can't see any other reasonable view. Joseph never presented the objects as catalyst. And none of his contemporaries took that view either.

Joseph said he gave him an interpretation, not translation. And Chandler doesn't say he was given a translation either. What Joseph, according to Chandler, gave him, perhaps even just told him, it corresponded with what other learned people had said about the papyrus. Not sure that spells out Joseph thinking he was translating the language.

[Buckeye]

Possible.

Joseph said he gave him an interpretation, not translation. And Chandler doesn't say he was given a translation either. What Joseph, according to Chandler, gave him, perhaps even just told him, it corresponded with what other learned people had said about the papyrus. Not sure that spells out Joseph thinking he was translating the language.

 

For this point, it doesn't matter to me whether it was an "interpretation," "translation," "hallucination," "divination," or any other -ation.  The point is that Joseph believed he was providing what was on contained on the papyri.  Otherwise, why would Joseph publish the Chandler certificate that claimed Joseph was successful in "deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession." ?

[Nevo]

I view the Parrish quote as referring to how Joseph translated, not what.  That Joseph thought he was translating through inspiration from heaven does not alter the record that he also thought he was translating the actual papyri. . . . I can't see any other reasonable view. Joseph never presented the objects as catalyst. And none of his contemporaries took that view either.

 

Of course Joseph thought he was translating the actual papyri. That doesn't disprove the catalyst theory.

[omni]

Possible.Joseph said he gave him an interpretation, not translation. And Chandler doesn't say he was given a translation either. What Joseph, according to Chandler, gave him, perhaps even just told him, it corresponded with what other learned people had said about the papyrus. Not sure that spells out Joseph thinking he was translating the language.

I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. In addition to the evidence Buckeye provided, the catalyst theory simply doesn't make logical sense. The default position in this situation would be to believe Joseph was providing a direct translation. Had he been using the papyri as a catalyst why didn't he simply explain this in the Times and Seasons while they were being printed - in fact we have no record anywhere of Joseph claiming them to be a catalyst. Certainly Joseph realized the Saints believed the BoA to be a direct translation, why not correct them in their ignorance and prevent an erroneous view the persists to this day?

The catalyst theory exists for one reason and one reason only, not because the evidence leads us there, but because the papyri don't match up with the BoA. One last point, the Church was desperately poor during this period, why use what was a considerable sum of money at the time to purchase the papyri if they didn't contain the contents of the BoA?

[omni]

Of course Joseph thought he was translating the actual papyri. That doesn't disprove the catalyst theory.

But it also doesn't say much for his intelligence. In your view what purpose would it serve? Do you believe through God's divine power Joseph would have been any less able to translate had he realized they were to be used as a catalyst?

[Nevo]

But it also doesn't say much for his intelligence. In your view what purpose would it serve? Do you believe through God's divine power Joseph would have been any less able to translate had he realized they were to be used as a catalyst?

 

I don't see that Joseph's intelligence has anything to do with it. I think Joseph used an ordinary rock as a catalyst to receive the Book of Mormon. That doesn't make Joseph a dimwit. That's just how he received the revelation.

[omni]

I don't see that Joseph's intelligence has anything to do with it. I think Joseph used an ordinary rock as a catalyst to receive the Book of Mormon. That doesn't make Joseph a dimwit. That's just how he received the revelation.

What I'm asking is why do you believe God would operate in such a manner? We have an example of him fooling or at a minimum revealing to Joseph the BoA in such an odd manner as to completely confuse him of its origins and then neglect to correct him. The BoA is a very real issue that in my estimation has caused thousands of good strong members to lose their testimonies. Notice how you never hear about a crisis of faith over the Book of Moses; had God simply revealed the text to Joseph minus the papyri or at a minimum explained to him they were only to be used as a catalyst, I think a lot of testimonies could have been saved.

[Nevo]

What I'm asking is why do you believe God would operate in such a manner?

 

I don't presume to know why God operates in the ways he does. I think it's unfortunate that people have left the Church over this issue. But a lot of people have left the Church for a lot of reasons that I don't find very compelling. All of Joseph's "translations" of ancient writings made use of some physical object, whether a seer stone, a Bible, or Egyptian papyri. I think Henry Eyring père got it right a generation ago when he wrote: "If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving [Abraham's thoughts and words], they would have fulfilled their purpose."

[stemelbow]

I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. In addition to the evidence Buckeye provided, the catalyst theory simply doesn't make logical sense. The default position in this situation would be to believe Joseph was providing a direct translation. Had he been using the papyri as a catalyst why didn't he simply explain this in the Times and Seasons while they were being printed - in fact we have no record anywhere of Joseph claiming them to be a catalyst. Certainly Joseph realized the Saints believed the BoA to be a direct translation, why not correct them in their ignorance and prevent an erroneous view the persists to this day?

The catalyst theory exists for one reason and one reason only, not because the evidence leads us there, but because the papyri don't match up with the BoA. One last point, the Church was desperately poor during this period, why use what was a considerable sum of money at the time to purchase the papyri if they didn't contain the contents of the BoA?

But much like the BoM translation, did Joseph ever really use the papyrus? Not sure that he looked upon it and translated what was on it into the BoA. I think it's becoming more and more obvious that Joseph did not translate texts so much as provide writing through inspiration. SOmehow the items were needed for him in order to receive the inspiration. I don't know why or how, but it seems like he did not take texts and convert their characters into English as seemed obvious on the face of it all.

With that, I'm not sure the evidence leads us to the notion that Joseph took any text and converted it's writings into what became our scripture. It just doesn't seem like that was what was going on--not for the BoM, Book of Moses, BoA, Doctrine and Covenants, his translation of the Bible...none of it.

[CA Steve]

But much like the BoM translation, did Joseph ever really use the papyrus? Not sure that he looked upon it and translated what was on it into the BoA. I think it's becoming more and more obvious that Joseph did not translate texts so much as provide writing through inspiration. SOmehow the items were needed for him in order to receive the inspiration. I don't know why or how, but it seems like he did not take texts and convert their characters into English as seemed obvious on the face of it all.

With that, I'm not sure the evidence leads us to the notion that Joseph took any text and converted it's writings into what became our scripture. It just doesn't seem like that was what was going on--not for the BoM, Book of Moses, BoA, Doctrine and Covenants, his translation of the Bible...none of it.

Isn't that exactly what he was trying to do in the GAEL?

[Freedom]

So it is unimportant how we receive our scripture? As this issue is a problem for many in the church and therefore likely a concern for the brethren because of the impact the question is having, I think asking would be a logical step. You bring up some great questions. Why not get answers for those while we're at it? If we ask we shall receive, right? Do we really believe our prophets can get important answers or not?

Simply put, this is not the purpose of revelation. Revelation is to bring us closer to salvation, not for scientific discoveries. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We might as well go right to the very root of your request and have God just come down and travel the world giving seminars. We are required to rely on faith because we need to learn how to receive revelation. This is how we communicate in the eternities. 

[Gervin]

How so? First of all, what I said indicates nothing about which way the conclusion could go. It was phrased in a fairly neutral manner (which showed admirable restraint since I do in fact think it is a slam dunk).

Second, an ad hominem argument is when one tries to use an irrelevent reference to the character of a person as a logical step in a deductive argument. I did no such thing. In fact, I made no argument toward one concusion or another. I didn't even mildly  insult anyone. I simply indicated my opinion that educating oneself on the topic by reading a cross section of the prominant arguments made by informed people would be enough to allow one to come to a conclusion.

So what gives man?

Yes, I'm fallacy-application challenged.  Perhaps you were simply poisoning the well. 

To wit,

"Anyone studying the BOA will understand that it's a fraud unless their prejudices are insurmountable."

See?

[Buckeye]

Simply put, this is not the purpose of revelation. Revelation is to bring us closer to salvation, not for scientific discoveries. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We might as well go right to the very root of your request and have God just come down and travel the world giving seminars. We are required to rely on faith because we need to learn how to receive revelation. This is how we communicate in the eternities. 

 

I'm paraphrasing, but I recall Joseph teaching something like: "a man is saved no faster than he acquires knowledge."  So it seems to me that Joseph tied knowledge and salvation together.  If that's correct, then wouldn't scientific discoveries be a part of salvation?

[Robert F. Smith]

According to scribe Warren Parrish, Joseph "claimed to receive [the translation] by direct inspiration from Heaven" (Warren Parrish letter to the editor, Painesville [Ohio] Republican [15 Feb. 1838]: 3). That doesn't sound to me like Joseph thought he was translating in a traditional sense.

...........................................................................

I agree, and it seemed odd that anyone would suggest that he claimed to translate in a traditional sense.  Only Egyptologists translate Egyptian in a traditional sense.  On the other hand, I don't agree that the catalyst theory is a legitimate alternative.  Not for the BofA, nor for the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't see that Joseph's intelligence has anything to do with it. I think Joseph used an ordinary rock as a catalyst to receive the Book of Mormon. That doesn't make Joseph a dimwit. That's just how he received the revelation.

Problem is that, accordng to witnesses, the "rock" acted as a solid state light-emitting diode (LED) upon which characters would appear followed by a translation, which he then read off to the scribe.

 

That does not suggest that his intelligence had nothing to do with it.  Especially if his mind was acting as an inspired feedback loop (with the Holy Spirit), same as experienced by the Saints at Pentecost (Acts 2) when they were interpreting/translating languages.  Not by traditional means.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Simply put, this is not the purpose of revelation. Revelation is to bring us closer to salvation,

I don't understand this. Joseph had questions. He asked and he received answers. Did this not build faith? Did it not lead people to Christ and thus salvation? Asking questions to clarify problems that challenge many in their faith seems reasonable to me as it ultimately builds faith and confidence in God/Christ which encourages us to seek salvation.

[CA Steve]

I don't see that Joseph's intelligence has anything to do with it. I think Joseph used an ordinary rock as a catalyst to receive the Book of Mormon. That doesn't make Joseph a dimwit. That's just how he received the revelation.

Nothing about the seer stones JS used seems ordinary, from the descriptions surrounding their use to how they were found. Certainly the story about Harris switching out the stones to try and fool Joseph Smith would make no sense if it was just an ordinary rock. If they were ordinary stones why would they have been taken back from Joseph Smith when he lost the 116 pages?

[stemelbow]

Nothing about the seer stones JS used seems ordinary, from the descriptions surrounding their use to how they were found. Certainly the story about Harris switching out the stones to try and fool Joseph Smith would make no sense if it was just an ordinary rock. If they were ordinary stones why would they have been taken back from Joseph Smith when he lost the 116 pages?

Deception could itself be something that prevented revelation. It may not have been the quality or specialness of the device.

It seems most suggest, these days anyway, the rock used to translate most of the Book of Mormon, if not wall, was found ordinarily in a well.

[JLHPROF]

Deception could itself be something that prevented revelation. It may not have been the quality or specialness of the device.

It seems most suggest, these days anyway, the rock used to translate most of the Book of Mormon, if not wall, was found ordinarily in a well.

 

I don't believe for a second that the seer stone was an ordinary rock.

The Lord has a scriptural history of using special stones to transmit information and revelation.  It is more than just any old rock.

[Freedom]

I'm paraphrasing, but I recall Joseph teaching something like: "a man is saved no faster than he acquires knowledge."  So it seems to me that Joseph tied knowledge and salvation together.  If that's correct, then wouldn't scientific discoveries be a part of salvation?

Scientific discovery and revelation are not related any more than  eating bananas with yogurt and revelation is related. Unless you can provide examples of where scientific discoveries came about through revelation rather than through examining tangible evidence there is just no connection. It is possible to received guidance when pursuing an investigation, but there are no examples I know of where prophets have revealed information that has been accepted by the academic community as a scientific breakthrough. 

[Freedom]

I don't understand this. Joseph had questions. He asked and he received answers. Did this not build faith? Did it not lead people to Christ and thus salvation? Asking questions to clarify problems that challenge many in their faith seems reasonable to me as it ultimately builds faith and confidence in God/Christ which encourages us to seek salvation.

He asked questions to do with doctrine and principles. I would invite you to get on your knees and start praying for an explanation of the causes of gravity and see how it works out. You would have to provide an example where, in the scriptures, historical or scientific data has been revealed. If you want to understand the world around you do it like everybody else does it. Study the data. If you want to learn about God and how to return to him, get on your knees an pray. If you want help understanding the data to learn about the world around you, pray for wisdom; but no, God will not come down and place a rare artifact in your lap while you are kneeling by your bed. 

 

If revelation reveals all truth, why would the church build institutions like BYU? It would be better to just create a really big celestial room and have people pray all day long. 

[Nevo]

Nothing about the seer stones JS used seems ordinary, from the descriptions surrounding their use to how they were found. Certainly the story about Harris switching out the stones to try and fool Joseph Smith would make no sense if it was just an ordinary rock. If they were ordinary stones why would they have been taken back from Joseph Smith when he lost the 116 pages?

 

My recollection is that Joseph found one of the stones in a buried kettle and the other while digging a well. The story about Harris switching the stones to try to fool Joseph Smith doesn't convince me that Joseph's stone had magical properties. If I had a rock that I had carried around with me for years and looked at/in regularly, I think I'd be able to distinguish it from a similar-looking rock pretty easily. I don't think Martin really thought that experiment through. Anyway, I realize some people still believe Joseph's seer stones were magic—I don't doubt he did—but I fall more in line with Brant Gardner's conclusion that "there was no magic in any of the stones. They were simply rocks that served the person with seeric talent as a means of expressing that talent" (Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon [salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011], 264).

[CA Steve]

My recollection is that Joseph found one of the stones in a buried kettle and the other while digging a well. The story about Harris switching the stones to try to fool Joseph Smith doesn't convince me that Joseph's stone had magical properties. If I had a rock that I had carried around with me for years and looked at/in regularly, I think I'd be able to distinguish it from a similar-looking rock pretty easily. I don't think Martin really thought that experiment through. Anyway, I realize some people still believe Joseph's seer stones were magic—I don't doubt he did—but I fall more in line with Brant Gardner's conclusion that "there was no magic in any of the stones. They were simply rocks that served the person with seeric talent as a means of expressing that talent" (Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon [salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011], 264).

If they are ordinary objects, why does the Book of Mormon say that anyone who looks in them without being commanded will perish?

Mosiah 8:13

Edited October 9, 2014 by CA Steve

[JLHPROF]

My recollection is that Joseph found one of the stones in a buried kettle and the other while digging a well. The story about Harris switching the stones to try to fool Joseph Smith doesn't convince me that Joseph's stone had magical properties. If I had a rock that I had carried around with me for years and looked at/in regularly, I think I'd be able to distinguish it from a similar-looking rock pretty easily. I don't think Martin really thought that experiment through. Anyway, I realize some people still believe Joseph's seer stones were magic—I don't doubt he did—but I fall more in line with Brant Gardner's conclusion that "there was no magic in any of the stones. They were simply rocks that served the person with seeric talent as a means of expressing that talent" (Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon [salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011], 264).

 

Seer stones are more than just rocks.  The Urim & Thummin contained two seerstones.  When we enter the Celestial Kingdom we will be given a white stone to function as a seerstone.  The entire earth when resurrected will become a Urim & Thummim (or seerstone).  God resides on a great Urim and Thummim or seerstone and as a result is able to see all things past, present and future continually.

 

 

The SEER STONE referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum, for a Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra, N.Y. It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it--as described above--as well as by means of the Interpreters found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates. (Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 129)

 

One item mentioned by President Woodruff about the private dedicatory services at Manti is of more than passing interest. `Before leaving,' he writes, `I consecrated upon the altar the Seer Stone that Joseph Smith found by revelation some thirty feet under the earth, and carried by him through life.' This is the very Seer Stone that the Prophet Joseph Smith used part of the time when translating the Book of Mormon; the one he took from the well he was digging with his brother Hyrum, near Palmyra, for Mr. Clark Chase. (C.H.C. 6:230)

                                    * * *

                                The statement has been made that the Urim and Thumim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This Seer stone is now in the possession of the Church. (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:225)

 

Who knows, eventually we may gain our own seerstones in this life, not just in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

 

Dec. 27, 1841: I met with the Twelve at Brother Joseph's. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone. (Brigham Young, Mill. Star 26:118)

 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

He asked questions to do with doctrine and principles.

JS asked questions about everything including mundane daily tasks of others and then provided the individual with revelation. I find it ironic that we are told to pray to get a spiritual witness and get questions answered but then when we pray and don't get answers we're told we shouldn't be praying about that particular thing. This is foolishness. If I need to know something about the workings of God, and I pray about the BoAbraham and the mode of revelation, I cannot understand why this would be an inappropriate prayer. It's not like I'm praying for my sports team to win or my boss to get fired.