Loose Ends?

[mass168]

Many of my issues with LDS theology have to do with the ever evolving understanding of things supposedly sacred, with or without revelation. Came across the blurb below while reading about creation on LDS.org. If the catalyst theory is now a thing (which it seems to be), doesn't the church have a lot of work to do "correcting" loose ends such as this? 

 

3. The Book of Abraham Account (Abr. 3–5). This account was recorded by Abraham. A form of it was discovered in an Egyptian tomb and later sold to the Latter-day Saints. By revelation, the Prophet Joseph Smith produced the text of the Book of Abraham and published it in the Times and Seasons. In 1851 it was reprinted in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price.

Edited March 15, 2015 by mass168

[cinepro]

The reference is from this article:

Four Accounts of the Creation

 

To answer your question:

 

1. In 1986, most LDS probably assumed the Book of Abraham was an actual translation of the papyri.  Heck, most probably still do believe this (in spite of the essays).

 

2. An article by Keith Meservy isn't authoritative.  The Ensign publishes weird, incorrect and otherwise unusual personal opinions from church members and leaders all the time.

 

3. The Church isn't good at going back and changing previously published materials in light of new attitudes and theories, and I'm not sure they should be.  If they were, I suspect some people would go nuts.  There are still statements about the literalness of Noah's ark and the Tower of Babel, the location of Hill Cumorah being in New York, and Adam and Eve not having blood until after the fall, among other unique teachings.  I would just love to be the person in charge of tying up "loose ends" and getting to tell Elder Nelson that we're tidying up his conference talk since many LDS believe the idea of "no blood before the Fall" is cuckoo for cocoa-puffs.

Edited March 15, 2015 by cinepro

[Kenngo1969]

I'm probably missing something (first time that's ever happened ), but:

1. Has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopted the catalyst theory as an official explanation for the Book of Abraham, and I simply didn't get the memo?
2. Has the catalyst theory been proposed by someone else in an attempt to tie up the supposed "loose ends" with respect to the Book of Abraham, and you think (or someone else thinks) that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should adopt it (or part of it) as the official explanation for the Book of Abraham?

I think, generally, that such attempts to resolve as-yet unresolved questions (or supposed questions) end up raising more questions than they resolve.  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to [His Kingdom]."  Articles of Faith 1:9.  He has promised us, "They shall not be ashamed that wait for me," and (frankly, I can imagine him responding in precisely this way to those who condescend to Him), "I am able to do mine own work."  I'm perfectly content to "wait for [Him]" and to believe His assurances that He "can do [His] own work," no matter what theory or explanation du jour currently is "a thing."

Edited March 15, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Coreyb]

I suppose we could just tear out that page and send it down the chute to the furnace. Oh wait.. .. It's not 1984 it's 2015, so it's all online, constantly being cached and screenshot by the world wide watchmen!

[mfbukowski]

I'm probably missing something (first time that's ever happened ), but:

1. Has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopted the catalyst theory as an official explanation for the Book of Abraham, and I simply didn't get the memo?
2. Has the catalyst theory been proposed by someone else in an attempt to tie up the supposed "loose ends" with respect to the Book of Abraham, and you think (or someone else thinks) that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should adopt it (or part of it) as the official explanation for the Book of Abraham?

I think, generally, that such attempts to resolve as-yet unresolved questions (or supposed questions) end up raising more questions than they resolve.  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to [His Kingdom]."  Articles of Faith 1:9.  He has promised us, "They shall not be ashamed that wait for me," and (frankly, I can imagine him responding in precisely this way to those who condescend to Him, "I am able to do mine own work."  I'm perfectly content to do "wait for [Him]" and to believe His assurances that He "can do [His] own work," no matter what theory or explanation du jour currently is "a thing."

The answer to 1 is "essentially yes".

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

Many of my issues with LDS theology have to do with the ever evolving understanding of things supposedly sacred, with or without revelation. Came across the blurb below while reading about creation on LDS.org. If the catalyst theory is now a thing (which it seems to be), doesn't the church have a lot of work to do "correcting" loose ends such as this? 

 

3. The Book of Abraham Account (Abr. 3–5). This account was recorded by Abraham. A form of it was discovered in an Egyptian tomb and later sold to the Latter-day Saints. By revelation, the Prophet Joseph Smith produced the text of the Book of Abraham and published it in the Times and Seasons. In 1851 it was reprinted in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price.

Read the link quoted above

[Robert F. Smith]

Many of my issues with LDS theology have to do with the ever evolving understanding of things supposedly sacred, with or without revelation. Came across the blurb below while reading about creation on LDS.org. If the catalyst theory is now a thing (which it seems to be), doesn't the church have a lot of work to do "correcting" loose ends such as this? 

 

3. The Book of Abraham Account (Abr. 3–5). This account was recorded by Abraham. A form of it was discovered in an Egyptian tomb and later sold to the Latter-day Saints. By revelation, the Prophet Joseph Smith produced the text of the Book of Abraham and published it in the Times and Seasons. In 1851 it was reprinted in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price.

Not sure what you consider a "loose end," since such introductory blurbs are written in many LDS contexts -- written by regular human members of the Church like you and me.  Take the 1957 official LDS Melchizedek Priesthood manual written by Hugh Nibley.  Its publication and use did not constitute official doctrine, and no one to my knowledge has ever cited it as such.  Many such items are written and published with Church sanction, and are helpful in our studies, but should never be objectified or absolutized.

 

Canon lawyers need not apply here.

[Robert F. Smith]

The reference is from this article:

Four Accounts of the Creation

 

To answer your question:

 

1. In 1986, most LDS probably assumed the Book of Abraham was an actual translation of the papyri.  Heck, most probably still do believe this (in spite of the essays).

 

2. An article by Keith Meservy isn't authoritative.  The Ensign publishes weird, incorrect and otherwise unusual personal opinions from church members and leaders all the time.

 

3. The Church isn't good at going back and changing previously published materials in light of new attitudes and theories, and I'm not sure they should be.  If they were, I suspect some people would go nuts.  There are still statements about the literalness of Noah's ark and the Tower of Babel, the location of Hill Cumorah being in New York, and Adam and Eve not having blood until after the fall, among other unique teachings.  I would just love to be the person in charge of tying up "loose ends" and getting to tell Elder Nelson that we're tidying up his conference talk since many LDS believe the idea of "no blood before the Fall" is cuckoo for cocoa-puffs.

Well-stated.

[carbon dioxide]

Many of my issues with LDS theology have to do with the ever evolving understanding of things supposedly sacred, with or without revelation. Came across the blurb below while reading about creation on LDS.org. If the catalyst theory is now a thing (which it seems to be), doesn't the church have a lot of work to do "correcting" loose ends such as this? 

 

3. The Book of Abraham Account (Abr. 3–5). This account was recorded by Abraham. A form of it was discovered in an Egyptian tomb and later sold to the Latter-day Saints. By revelation, the Prophet Joseph Smith produced the text of the Book of Abraham and published it in the Times and Seasons. In 1851 it was reprinted in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price.

From what I remember, writings from the OT Joseph was also included in records obtained by Joseph Smith.  If that is the case, why did not Joseph Smith just produce the revelations in that if the catalyst theory is correct.  Why even bother with such writings if that was the method?  I believe it was an actual translation of the papyri that he had and that actual text is lost.  I am not willing to throw Joseph Smith under the bus because what has been found which is not the Book of Abraham text raises issues. 

[carbon dioxide]

The reference is from this article:

Four Accounts of the Creation

 

To answer your question:

 

3. The Church isn't good at going back and changing previously published materials in light of new attitudes and theories, and I'm not sure they should be.  If they were, I suspect some people would go nuts.  There are still statements about the literalness of Noah's ark and the Tower of Babel, the location of Hill Cumorah being in New York, and Adam and Eve not having blood until after the fall, among other unique teachings.  I would just love to be the person in charge of tying up "loose ends" and getting to tell Elder Nelson that we're tidying up his conference talk since many LDS believe the idea of "no blood before the Fall" is cuckoo for cocoa-puffs.

The Church still teaches that there was a literal Noah and a flood occurred and a tower of Babel.  Did Adam and Eve have blood before the fall?  Perhaps Adam and Eve were tormented in paradise with parasites and other things before the fall as well. 

[Kenngo1969]

The answer to 1 is "essentially yes".

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

And why do you say that?

[Freedom]

Many of my issues with LDS theology have to do with the ever evolving understanding of things supposedly sacred, with or without revelation. 

Funny, of the many issues i have with non-lds christian theology is the inability to have an evolving understanding of things supposedly sacred. This unwillingness to accept new light and knowledge is what produced the dark ages. it is what is causing the anti-science movement in the U.S. where school districts are actively teaching creationisms in the science class. 

 

We fully accept that we do not have all the answers and we try to fill in the gaps as best we can. We are also very willing to accept that our gap fillers may be wrong and we are always willing to modify them when more information comes available. I cannot accept a religion that would adhere to any other philosophy. 

[carbon dioxide]

The answer to 1 is "essentially yes".

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

That article leaves the issue as an option.  Not that it has adopted that theory being correct or even the most likely.  I have problems with the catalyst theory including why did not Joseph Smith also produce the Book of Joseph through that methodology as well?  If Joseph Smith lost access to the papyri that allegedly contained the book of Joseph, that would explain why no translation occurred.  If the catalyst approach is correct, he would not have needed it and we he should have produced it at some point. 

[cinepro]

The Church still teaches that there was a literal Noah and a flood occurred and a tower of Babel.  Did Adam and Eve have blood before the fall?  Perhaps Adam and Eve were tormented in paradise with parasites and other things before the fall as well. 

 

I know.  Just as it still teaches that The Book of Abraham is a "translation of some ancient records" from "the catacombs of Egypt".

[mfbukowski]

And why do you say that?

Sorry, I am misunderstanding you I guess.

 

Your question was if the church had adopted the catalyst theory.  That article, to me, says essentially that yes, the church has adopted the catalyst theory.  That was my answer and now you are asking me why that is my understanding?

 

I am confused.   Perhaps you don't think that that church statement represents the "catalyst theory"?

[mfbukowski]

That article leaves the issue as an option.  Not that it has adopted that theory being correct or even the most likely.  I have problems with the catalyst theory including why did not Joseph Smith also produce the Book of Joseph through that methodology as well?  If Joseph Smith lost access to the papyri that allegedly contained the book of Joseph, that would explain why no translation occurred.  If the catalyst approach is correct, he would not have needed it and we he should have produced it at some point. 

OK well maybe that explains the other misunderstanding as well.

 

Give me a loophole, and I will drive a truck through it.

 

As far as I am concerned that statement legitimizes the catalyst theory, and that is all I personally need for me to see my personal beliefs as a possible interpretation which is church sanctioned.

 

"Accuracy" in such things to me is a myth-  because it is impossible to "VERIFY" because we have nothing to compare any of it to, except the BOA, and that proves to me that gizmos were irrelevant to his compositions.

 

See most people start with the gizmos- the plates, the hat, the papyrus, the "props" that Joseph needed to stimulate composition.  They say Joseph could not be a prophet because the gizmos are not what Joseph thought they were.

 

I start with a testimony that Joseph was a prophet.  God told me that.  It is not possible for me to doubt that.

 

From that I work backwards to figure out why Joseph needed props.   I think everyone else sees it backwards- BECAUSE NO MATTER WHERE HE GOT THEM, we can't know his revelations are from God UNLESS GOD TELLS US SO.

 

Same for the bible- historicity is irrelevant to me, all that matters is what God tells me.  So I believe the bible, BOM, BOA etc regardless of historicity which is irrelevant anyway.

 

All I am interested in is possible interpretations that the church says are "ok", and now the catalyst theory is "ok"

 

For me everything that Joseph wrote was an example of the "catalyst theory".   I think Joseph liked natural gizmos and needed that crutch to receive revelation.  He needed the plates, the hat, the stone to translate/compose the BOM.

 

For psychological reasons he needed the papyri to receive the BOA.   In some cases, he was ok without any gizmos- the Book of Moses, D&C etc.

 

So that is my reference point.  Science and physical "evidence" cannot prove a prophet- the proof of a prophet is in "the pudding"- the religious and spiritual content of his revelations.

 

For me, there can be no doubt that Joseph was a prophet, based on my own spiritual "evidence".   So working backward from there, I account for the props Joseph believed he needed.

 

They worked for him- the why is irrelevant.   Perhaps he felt inferior due to his lack of education etc.  He felt he needed something solid to lean on.   I have no problem with that, he was a human being like all of us.  Whatever works to get us there.

 

But what an incredible human being and prophet he was!!

[mfbukowski]

I know.  Just as it still teaches that The Book of Abraham is a "translation of some ancient records" from "the catacombs of Egypt".

Prove it is not.

 

Good luck with that.  Find the non-existent manuscript and show us its non-existence.  Or find it and show us it corresponds to what he wrote.

 

Can you see that it is folly even to follow this line of thinking?   Then stop following it.

 

The proposition is non-falsifiable, just like the proposition "God exists".

 

Get over it.   God is not about evidence, even if the church sometimes says it is.  Those are the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

[mfbukowski]

Funny, of the many issues i have with non-lds christian theology is the inability to have an evolving understanding of things supposedly sacred. This unwillingness to accept new light and knowledge is what produced the dark ages. it is what is causing the anti-science movement in the U.S. where school districts are actively teaching creationisms in the science class. 

 

We fully accept that we do not have all the answers and we try to fill in the gaps as best we can. We are also very willing to accept that our gap fillers may be wrong and we are always willing to modify them when more information comes available. I cannot accept a religion that would adhere to any other philosophy. 

Dang.

 

The room is spinning.   North is South and East is West.

 

I agree with Freedom????

 

It's not possible!   

[mfbukowski]

All the church teaches which is not scripture is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture?

An interesting thought, and not a bad argument at all.

There goes the global flood, there goes no evolution. According to my reading of the Bible, there is no conflict with evolution. Anyone who says otherwise is preaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

[mfbukowski]

All the church teaches which is not scripture is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture?

An interesting thought, and not a bad argument at all.

There goes the global flood, there goes no evolution. According to my reading of the Bible, there is no conflict with evolution. Anyone who says otherwise is preaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Specifically Descartes, Plato and Aristotle.

But that is for another day.

[carbon dioxide]

 

From that I work backwards to figure out why Joseph needed props.   I think everyone else sees it backwards- BECAUSE NO MATTER WHERE HE GOT THEM, we can't know his revelations are from God UNLESS GOD TELLS US SO.

 

Same for the bible- historicity is irrelevant to me, all that matters is what God tells me.  So I believe the bible, BOM, BOA etc regardless of historicity which is irrelevant anyway.

 

All I am interested in is possible interpretations that the church says are "ok", and now the catalyst theory is "ok"

 

For me everything that Joseph wrote was an example of the "catalyst theory".   I think Joseph liked natural gizmos and needed that crutch to receive revelation.  He needed the plates, the hat, the stone to translate/compose the BOM.

 

For psychological reasons he needed the papyri to receive the BOA.   In some cases, he was ok without any gizmos- the Book of Moses, D&C etc.

 

Seems like at lot of work the Book of Mormon writers went through just so that Joseph Smith needed a prop.  Perhaps they just needed to throw a few plates together and scribble on it and that would have been good enough.  I can just picture them seeing how the plates were used and doing a Homer Simpson "Doh".  The writings of Joseph was also included in the papyri.   If Joseph needed just a prop to inspire him, we should have more than just the BOA. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Kenngo1969]

Sorry, I am misunderstanding you I guess.

 

Your question was if the church had adopted the catalyst theory.  That article, to me, says essentially that yes, the church has adopted the catalyst theory.  That was my answer and now you are asking me why that is my understanding?

 

I am confused.   Perhaps you don't think that that church statement represents the "catalyst theory"?

As I read the linked material, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not ruled out the catalyst theory, just as it has not ruled out the missing papyrus theory.  The linked material presents both theories as possibilities.   However, that's a far cry from saying that the Church of Jesus Christ has endorsed or adopted any particular explanation with respect to the existence of the Book of Abraham, except to say that however it came forth, it was by the gift and power of God.  I await further light and knowledge on particular methods and mechanisms involved in that process. To me, the opening poster suggested that the Church of Jesus Christ has indeed adopted a certain stance with respect to how the Book of Abraham came forth; I do not believe that to be the case, so that's why I asked the question(s) I did.  All the linked material does is present the possibilities, nothing more.

 

Apologies for any confusion.

[mfbukowski]

Seems like at lot of work the Book of Mormon writers went through just so that Joseph Smith needed a prop.  Perhaps they just needed to throw a few plates together and scribble on it and that would have been good enough.  I can just picture them seeing how the plates were used and doing a Homer Simpson "Doh".  The writings of Joseph was also included in the papyri.   If Joseph needed just a prop to inspire him, we should have more than just the BOA. 

Your point seems weirdly out of context.   I haven't a clue where you are coming from.

 

My personal belief is precisely that of a TBM.   I believe Joseph is a prophet who translated the BOM.  I believe that the BOM is itself historical- that it "really happened"

 

I also know that this position is non-falsifiable and that there are many other possible non-falsifiable theories which could be presented for why it is "rational" to believe the BOM as a religious text.   That is my objective.  I am not an apologist, but I play one on the internet

 

Your response does not address that at all.  Your first assumption appears to be that you believe the BOM is historical.  If you do believe that, there was no point in responding.   If you do not believe that, you missed the point.

[mfbukowski]

As I read the linked material, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not ruled out the catalyst theory, just as it has not ruled out the missing papyrus theory.  The linked material presents both theories as possibilities.   However, that's a far cry from saying that the Church of Jesus Christ has endorsed or adopted any particular explanation with respect to the existence of the Book of Abraham, except to say that however it came forth, it was by the gift and power of God.  I await further light and knowledge on particular methods and mechanisms involved in that process. To me, the opening poster suggested that the Church of Jesus Christ has indeed adopted a certain stance with respect to how the Book of Abraham came forth; I do not believe that to be the case, so that's why I asked the question(s) I did.  All the linked material does is present the possibilities, nothing more.

 

Apologies for any confusion.

No problem- as I said in another post is that all I am trying to do is show that belief in the BOM is "rational" for 93 dozen reasons that people usually do not even notice.

 

To me, they are all the same.  All are non-falsifiable and none can be "proven" anyway.

 

They are rational arguments seeking to prove something to be accepted by faith.   I think we get to pick our own theory and none is better than another except for the individual to help herself make sense of it all.

 

My goal is just to show as many ways of seeing this as possible.

[Kenngo1969]

...  My goal is just to show as many ways of seeing this as possible.

Sounds like a good goal to me ...  (I certainly have more than enough faith that I'm certainly not dissatisfied with the current state of affairs: missing papyrus, catalyst, or whatever theory may account for the most of the available evidence,  I do, however, look forward to the millennium, when, I believe, much of this stuff will become a lot less opaque.  For example, Mormon and Moroni weren't perfect abridgers: every once in awhile, they left in a hint about what we don't have.  I'm sure the Brass Plates knock the socks off of our current Old Testament, and the Book of Mormon's sealed portion probably knocks the socks off of both our current Old and New Testaments (as great as they are, and as much as I revere the sacrifices that brough them forth)!

 

P.S.: For that matter, why wait for the Millennium?  Where the heck is Don Bradley's treatment of the missing 116 pages???

Edited March 16, 2015 by Kenngo1969