Book of Abraham == the New View

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you mean the seer stones of Joseph's?  I know those were later called the Urim and Thummim.  They no longer had the one that came with the golden plates, did they?

JS-H 1: 35, 42, 52, 59, 62 mentions his knowledge of, access to and use of the Urim and Thummim.

It is interesting to me in verse 62 that he says, "I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following." He didn't seem to use the Urim and Thummim in the copying, which may have contributed to their unusual appearance and perhaps inaccuracies in their representation.

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

JS-H 1: 35, 42, 52, 59, 62 mentions his knowledge of, access to and use of the Urim and Thummim.

It is interesting to me in verse 62 that he says, "I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following." He didn't seem to use the Urim and Thummim in the copying, which may have contributed to their unusual appearance and perhaps inaccuracies in their representation.

 

I didn't question that Joseph originally had them.  I was talking about using them for the Book of Abraham translation. They referred to the seer stones as the Urim and Thummin by then.  Hadn't the original ones (from angel Moroni) been taken back by then?  Are you thinking Joseph used the original ones for the Book of Abraham or used his seer stones?

Edited November 11, 2016 by JulieM

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think Michael Ash aptly summed up the role of secular/scientific "evidence" in the life of a Latter-day Saint:

There are people who need to rely, to some extent, on "secular evidences."  I do not begrudge them that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think they need "secular evidences" as much as they need to BELIEVE THERE ARE "secular evidences".   And I see that need to believe as a religious belief- one needs to actually have FAITH that there ARE "secular evidences"

This is about psychology, not about religion or logic.  It is a psychological need- nothing more or less.

People say "Well if there was no original Book of Abraham then Joseph is a fraud"

Does that mean Abraham himself was a fraud if he was the original author?   What secular evidence do we have that anything alleged Moses or alleged Abraham wrote was the "word of God" any more than we know Joseph's writings were the word of God? Or that alleged Jesus was the alleged Savior?

It's still the same question no matter how far back we take in in infinite regress!!

The quest for secular evidence becomes a kind of religion in itself!

No one was ever converted based on secular evidence nor will anyone be converted based on it.   This belief is a kind of meta-belief which comes AFTER one already believes the gospel based on spiritual evidence.  One has a religious experience- THEN one asks "How could that have happened??" and the rationalization steps in

"Well it happened because Joseph may have not had the right papyrus...... " or choose your argument.

OK I accept that some need that as a crutch, but in fact they are deluding themselves.   I cannot deny that delusions can be part of getting through life-  this is a tough, tough world.

But put the best "CSI" skills you can find to the test by having them prove the resurrection and you will eventually come up and face the bottom line

Yes there were allegedly apostles who allegedly became stronger after the alleged resurrection and allegedly were all martyred for what they strongly believed.   That's all hearsay of course.   One could not prove the resurrection beyond a reasonable doubt in a court, nor even by a civil court standard of "preponderance of the evidence".  You know more about that than I do!

I do not mean to be mean or confrontational, we need to boldly stand up and say "YES this is preposterous but these beliefs are still valid" BECAUSE religious beliefs based on testimony are themselves valid, and we don't need to "apologize" for that," pun intended.

Edited November 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I didn't question that Joseph originally had them.  I was talking about using them for the Book of Abraham translation. They referred to the seer stones as the Urim and Thummin by then.  Hadn't the original ones (from angel Moroni) been taken back by then?  Are you thinking Joseph used the original ones for the Book of Abraham or used his seer stones?

I don't think he used either the U&T or seer stone(s) for the Book of Abraham translation.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think he used either the U&T or seer stone(s) for the Book of Abraham translation.

Ok, I agree.  

[cinepro]

On 11/10/2016 at 1:53 PM, cdowis said:

 

I realize this leaves alot of questions and holes, but Ed seems to have resurrected this idea and gives us a new direction.

If you're saying that the previous version of this idea was dead and heading in the wrong direction, I can't help but agree with you.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet despite the near total lack of "forensic evidence" for one of the most important events in American history, is there any reasonable dispute about Booth killing Lincoln?  No.  Why?  Because there is ample non-forensic evidence.  This is why nobody goes around saying things like "We need forensic evidence that Booth assassinated Lincoln," or "The fact remains that historical/testimonial accounts of Booth shooting Lincoln are not evidence of anything, as much as Bigfoot-encounter accounts are not evidence."

 

Thanks,

-Smac

What are you talking about?   There is a ton of "forensic evidence" that Booth shot Lincoln (we have the gun and bullet!).   

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-blood-relics-from-the-lincoln-assassination-180954331/?no-ist

Defenders of the Book of Abraham can only fantasize about there being anything similar to the evidence that to this day supports the story of Abraham Lincoln's assassination.  I suggest trying to find a better analogy.

 

[cinepro]

These questions about the origin of the Book of Abraham are another area that make me scratch my head in confusion about there being any confusion.  After all, we have had a whole succession of men who have the same gifts and mantle that Joseph Smith had, yet none have been able to (or even attempted to) translate/dictate the lost Book of Joseph that was also present with the Book of Abraham.

At the very least, it would seem to be well within the realm of possibility for a modern Prophet to have revealed to him the process by which the Book of Abraham was revealed.  If that isn't possible, then it raises uncomfortable questions about "lost gifts" and the accusations we throw at other churches about them having lost the gifts of the spirit, when it looks like we've had some fade from our grasp as well.

It is my observation that issues regarding the Book of Abraham translation are one of the most common reasons men lose faith in the Church's claims and leave (polygamy for women).  This is a huge problem, and a little insight on the matter could help lessen the damage being done by ambiguous and weak guesses that do little to counter the most obvious explanation.

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

These questions about the origin of the Book of Abraham are another area that make me scratch my head in confusion about there being any confusion.  After all, we have had a whole succession of men who have the same gifts and mantle that Joseph Smith had, yet none have been able to (or even attempted to) translate/dictate the lost Book of Joseph that was also present with the Book of Abraham.

At the very least, it would seem to be well within the realm of possibility for a modern Prophet to have revealed to him the process by which the Book of Abraham was revealed.  If that isn't possible, then it raises uncomfortable questions about "lost gifts" and the accusations we throw at other churches about them having lost the gifts of the spirit, when it looks like we've had some fade from our grasp as well.

It is my observation that issues regarding the Book of Abraham translation are one of the most common reasons men lose faith in the Church's claims and leave (polygamy for women).  This is a huge problem, and a little insight on the matter could help lessen the damage being done by ambiguous and weak guesses that do little to counter the most obvious explanation.

It seems to me that the conundrum lies in the way that the church interpreted many elements of Christianity in a hyper literalistic way.  Modern scholarship has shown that Christianity hasn't always had a focus on such literal interpretations of scripture, this is a fairly recent trend.  So if you can accept that the whole story of Abraham was likely passed down as myth and that even if an actual person named Abraham did exist at some point, that doesn't mean any of the narrative we have about Abraham describes actual events in this person's life.  If you can look at the entire story of Abraham as a metaphor for theological purposes, then its easy to accept that Joseph Smith was telling a story for modern theological purposes as well. 

I see the metaphorical approach to religion as the only one that can endure in a modern secular age.  Otherwise you're teaching people to ignore scholarship and logical inconsistencies that are present when people try to take the Bible as literal history.  Same problems with the BoM.  This is why I think those that insist on the historicity of the BoM or many of these texts are sailing on a sinking ship.  

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems to me that the conundrum lies in the way that the church interpreted many elements of Christianity in a hyper literalistic way.  Modern scholarship has shown that Christianity hasn't always had a focus on such literal interpretations of scripture, this is a fairly recent trend.  So if you can accept that the whole story of Abraham was likely passed down as myth and that even if an actual person named Abraham did exist at some point, that doesn't mean any of the narrative we have about Abraham describes actual events in this person's life.  If you can look at the entire story of Abraham as a metaphor for theological purposes, then its easy to accept that Joseph Smith was telling a story for modern theological purposes as well. 

I see the metaphorical approach to religion as the only one that can endure in a modern secular age.  Otherwise you're teaching people to ignore scholarship and logical inconsistencies that are present when people try to take the Bible as literal history.  Same problems with the BoM.  This is why I think those that insist on the historicity of the BoM or many of these texts are sailing on a sinking ship.  

For better or worse, Joseph Smith set a pretty solid foundation for the Church in these people being real.  Especially Abraham:

 1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/137?lang=eng

[CV75]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

These questions about the origin of the Book of Abraham are another area that make me scratch my head in confusion about there being any confusion.  After all, we have had a whole succession of men who have the same gifts and mantle that Joseph Smith had, yet none have been able to (or even attempted to) translate/dictate the lost Book of Joseph that was also present with the Book of Abraham.

At the very least, it would seem to be well within the realm of possibility for a modern Prophet to have revealed to him the process by which the Book of Abraham was revealed.  If that isn't possible, then it raises uncomfortable questions about "lost gifts" and the accusations we throw at other churches about them having lost the gifts of the spirit, when it looks like we've had some fade from our grasp as well.

It is my observation that issues regarding the Book of Abraham translation are one of the most common reasons men lose faith in the Church's claims and leave (polygamy for women).  This is a huge problem, and a little insight on the matter could help lessen the damage being done by ambiguous and weak guesses that do little to counter the most obvious explanation.

I think it is certainly within the realm of possibility for the successors to President Smith to receive revelation about the specific translation process(es) used for bringing forth the Book of Abraham. But I think a dependency on the need for such to be realized (as opposed to other things they might possibly prioritize for their revelation) is an example of why people might leave over the issue.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems to me that the conundrum lies in the way that the church interpreted many elements of Christianity in a hyper literalistic way.  Modern scholarship has shown that Christianity hasn't always had a focus on such literal interpretations of scripture, this is a fairly recent trend.  So if you can accept that the whole story of Abraham was likely passed down as myth and that even if an actual person named Abraham did exist at some point, that doesn't mean any of the narrative we have about Abraham describes actual events in this person's life.  If you can look at the entire story of Abraham as a metaphor for theological purposes, then its easy to accept that Joseph Smith was telling a story for modern theological purposes as well. 

I see the metaphorical approach to religion as the only one that can endure in a modern secular age.  Otherwise you're teaching people to ignore scholarship and logical inconsistencies that are present when people try to take the Bible as literal history.  Same problems with the BoM.  This is why I think those that insist on the historicity of the BoM or many of these texts are sailing on a sinking ship.  

My understanding of things LDS is that both the figurative and the literal, the rational (intellectual and physical) and the irrational (spiritual an emotional) each have an important role in working together to define what is "real," as they often operate on the exact same point with different types of understanding. And the same thing can be viewed in multiple ways for various legitimate purposes.

Edited November 12, 2016 by CV75

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

At the very least, it would seem to be well within the realm of possibility for a modern Prophet to have revealed to him the process by which the Book of Abraham was revealed.  If that isn't possible, then it raises uncomfortable questions about "lost gifts" and the accusations we throw at other churches about them having lost the gifts of the spirit, when it looks like we've had some fade from our grasp as well.

It is my observation that issues regarding the Book of Abraham translation are one of the most common reasons men lose faith in the Church's claims and leave (polygamy for women).  This is a huge problem, and a little insight on the matter could help lessen the damage being done by ambiguous and weak guesses that do little to counter the most obvious explanation.

It appears that you are giving counsel to God.

 Perhaps you could have advised Him that, after the resurrection, it seems that Christ could have appeared to the Sanhedrin, and even to Caesar.  It certainly would makes sense considering the persecution that the Christians suffered.

I do not think that you realize that you are weakening faith == "Yes, it makes sense, and since God has not done it, it is logical to assume etc etc"  This is how those who carry the burden of doubt see things.  The "I am smarter than God" complex.

Edited November 12, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

For better or worse, Joseph Smith set a pretty solid foundation for the Church in these people being real.  Especially Abraham:

 

 

"I SAW" is a subjective statement.

You see things in  a dream also.  It doesn't mean that if you were standing beside him you would see the same thing

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thanks for sharing that... I wonder if some application of the Urim and Thummim helped those with awkward hands to make fine or small characters, especially if they were of a uniform "font" (any idea of how many pages John Whitmer examined?) Joseph apparently didn't use them in preparing the sample characters sheet!

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

I have no idea how many pages John Whitmer examined, but my estimate of size and weight allows for plenty of pages on which to engrave the entire Book of Mormon and then some.  I imagine that Mormon and Moroni used uniform sized characters.  Not sure what Nephi's scribal hand would have been like, but possibly very different, since he was using the old fashioned Egyptian, not the reformed variety used a millennium later.  This old fashioned style would have been evident in the Brass Plates of Laban as well.

[cdowis]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"I SAW" is a subjective statement.

You see things in  a dream also.  It doesn't mean that if you were standing beside him you would see the same thing

There were multiple visions and  witnesses to these visions.

D&C 110 

 2 We ^asaw the Lord ^bstanding upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure ^cgold, in color like amber.

 3 His ^aeyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his ^bcountenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his ^cvoice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of ^dJehovah, 

--Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Edited November 12, 2016 by cdowis

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't think he used either the U&T or seer stone(s) for the Book of Abraham translation.

FAIR cites two separate statements form Wilford Woodruff claiming the BoA was translated via the Urim and Thummim. FAIR clarifies this references a seer stone.   http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/How_was_it_produced

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p. 198, cites the same quotations, a newspaper article about JS using spectacles to look at the papyrus, and an 1842 statement by Parley P. Pratt made in England that the BoA has been translated by the Urim and Thummim. Quinn also clarifies that a seer stone is being referenced, and specifically indicates a white stone the JS was in the habit of using at the time.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

What are you talking about?   There is a ton of "forensic evidence" that Booth shot Lincoln (we have the gun and bullet!).   

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-blood-relics-from-the-lincoln-assassination-180954331/?no-ist

We do?  How do we know that?  What forensic evidence ties the gun and bullet to Booth?

I guess I am open to the possibility of there being some forensic evidence implicating Booth.  I am open to correction on that point.  But I think the bulk of the evidence against him was not "forensic," but rather testimonial.  

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

Defenders of the Book of Abraham can only fantasize about there being anything similar to the evidence that to this day supports the story of Abraham Lincoln's assassination.  I suggest trying to find a better analogy.

I wasn't trying to present a comparative analysis of the evidences of these two events.  Rather, I was trying to point to the necessity and propriety of relying on other-than-forensic evidence for many (most?) historical issues.

What "forensic evidence" do we have that Socrates drank hemlock?

What "forensic evidence" do we have that Brutus & Co. killed Julius Caesar?

And so on.  There are all sorts of historical issues which are not particularly susceptible to being proven or disproven by "forensic evidence."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is my observation that issues regarding the Book of Abraham translation are one of the most common reasons men lose faith in the Church's claims and leave (polygamy for women).  This is a huge problem, and a little insight on the matter could help lessen the damage being done by ambiguous and weak guesses that do little to counter the most obvious explanation.

Which is that it was done by the gift and power of God. Thanks for leading us to that.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

FAIR cites two separate statements form Wilford Woodruff claiming the BoA was translated via the Urim and Thummim. FAIR clarifies this references a seer stone.   http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/How_was_it_produced

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p. 198, cites the same quotations, a newspaper article about JS using spectacles to look at the papyrus, and an 1842 statement by Parley P. Pratt made in England that the BoA has been translated by the Urim and Thummim. Quinn also clarifies that a seer stone is being referenced, and specifically indicates a white stone the JS was in the habit of using at the time.

Woodruff was on a mission in the Southern states when the bulk of the translation was taking place. Any information he would present would be hearsay. Woodruff's statements are pretty generic in nature.

Right now, the debate is old and very little new information is coming forth either way. There were other papyri. That is something for which there is pretty good eyewitness testimony from both friendly and neutral to unfriendly sources. It is just as amusing to me that anyone would look at the scraps that we do have and solemnly opine that such were the source of the Book of Abraham. Such an one knows that it is not possible. And Joseph would have know also. But he was a stupid genius, which explains it all.

Whatever the source of the Book of Abraham, it was produced, by direct revelation, according to those who assisted in its production. I don't worry about anything else. And direct revelation is also the means by which one would have to obtain a testimony that it was brought about by the gift and power of God.

Glenn

[Benjamin Seeker]

59 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Woodruff was on a mission in the Southern states when the bulk of the translation was taking place. Any information he would present would be hearsay. Woodruff's statements are pretty generic in nature.

Right now, the debate is old and very little new information is coming forth either way. There were other papyri. That is something for which there is pretty good eyewitness testimony from both friendly and neutral to unfriendly sources. It is just as amusing to me that anyone would look at the scraps that we do have and solemnly opine that such were the source of the Book of Abraham. Such an one knows that it is not possible. And Joseph would have know also. But he was a stupid genius, which explains it all.

Whatever the source of the Book of Abraham, it was produced, by direct revelation, according to those who assisted in its production. I don't worry about anything else. And direct revelation is also the means by which one would have to obtain a testimony that it was brought about by the gift and power of God.

Glenn

I should clarify that I'm not arguing for a specific source. All I'm suggesting is that JS likely dictated the BoA via a seerstone, which was his most typical modus operandi.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no idea how many pages John Whitmer examined, but my estimate of size and weight allows for plenty of pages on which to engrave the entire Book of Mormon and then some.  I imagine that Mormon and Moroni used uniform sized characters.  Not sure what Nephi's scribal hand would have been like, but possibly very different, since he was using the old fashioned Egyptian, not the reformed variety used a millennium later.  This old fashioned style would have been evident in the Brass Plates of Laban as well.

So in your opinion, mnemonics were not necessary to conserve space on the plates but that each character / symbol represented a word (or perhaps a sort phrase or abbreviation)... Is there any indication which part of the plates Joseph copied from (Nephi's inserted small plates or the portions)?

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

FAIR cites two separate statements form Wilford Woodruff claiming the BoA was translated via the Urim and Thummim. FAIR clarifies this references a seer stone.   http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/How_was_it_produced

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p. 198, cites the same quotations, a newspaper article about JS using spectacles to look at the papyrus, and an 1842 statement by Parley P. Pratt made in England that the BoA has been translated by the Urim and Thummim. Quinn also clarifies that a seer stone is being referenced, and specifically indicates a white stone the JS was in the habit of using at the time.

Well, now I think he just might have used the Urim and Thummim or seer stone(s) or both for the Book of Abraham translation!

[Benjamin Seeker]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, now I think he just might have used the Urim and Thummim or seer stone(s) or both for the Book of Abraham translation!

Pretty fun, right? It does make a lot of sense considering he seemed to always be coming back to seer stones. He had a fair collection when he died. And don't forget the infamous quote, which I believe comes from the Nauvoo period, where he says that God has prepared a seer stone for every person on earth, but their wickedness keeps them from it, or something along those lines.

Also, I found this paragraph on boap.org that cites a couple of additional references to the Urim and Thummim in regards to the BoA:

Note Woodruff's clear reference to Joseph Smith using the “Urim and Thummim” or a seer stone in the translation. Compare also Lucy Mack Smith’s 1846 recitation. [‘M’, 1846; note 34.] Parley P. Pratt, at the printing of MS-1 states "The Pearl of Great Price (perhaps where F. D. Richards got the term for his 1851 compilation) and proves to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph when in Egypt." [MS 3:47; Appendix IV.] His brother Orson Pratt shared this view of translation: "The Prophet translated the part of these writings which, as I have said is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, and known as the Book of Abraham. Thus you see one of the first gifts bestowed by the Lord for the benefit of His people, was that of revelation-the gift to translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, the gift of bringing to light old and ancient records." [JD 20:65] 

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

FAIR cites two separate statements form Wilford Woodruff claiming the BoA was translated via the Urim and Thummim. FAIR clarifies this references a seer stone.   http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/How_was_it_produced

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p. 198, cites the same quotations, a newspaper article about JS using spectacles to look at the papyrus, and an 1842 statement by Parley P. Pratt made in England that the BoA has been translated by the Urim and Thummim. Quinn also clarifies that a seer stone is being referenced, and specifically indicates a white stone the JS was in the habit of using at the time.

That's interesting.  So according to Wilford Woodruff, Joseph used his seer stones (which were called the Urim and Thummim) to aid him in translating the BofA.

Thanks for posting this information!

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by JulieM

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I should clarify that I'm not arguing for a specific source. All I'm suggesting is that JS likely dictated the BoA via a seerstone, which was his most typical modus operandi.

I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with you.

 

Glenn