LDS.org's Gospel Topic Essay BoA Quote

[Tacenda]

Okay, hold the horses....

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/cherry-picking-the-book-of-abraham-essay/

Critics and apologetics...doing the same thing?

[Benjamin Seeker]

It does seem like an innapropriate use of the quote, at least to me.

I recently listened to an interview with Brian Hauglid, one of the contributors to the essay. It was interesting hearing him talk a little bit about the back and forth that happened between the scholars and the church as the essays were being written. It was also interesting to hear him talk about the direct connection between the Book of Breathings fragment and the three early manuscripts of the BoA and how apologists largely don't address the connection.

 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It does seem like an innapropriate use of the quote, at least to me.

I recently listened to an interview with Brian Hauglid, one of the contributors to the essay. It was interesting hearing him talk a little bit about the back and forth that happened between the scholars and the church as the essays were being written. It was also interesting to hear him talk about the direct connection between the Book of Breathings fragment and the three early manuscripts of the BoA and how apologists largely don't address the connection.

 

It's probably more discouraging to learn that Brian Hauglid and others were involved on this reference was a result.  I'm saying it really hits you in the gut when you think the Church is really trying to open up, let the truth speak, but then things like this happen.  It hardly seems they could have overlooked it, if there was a crew of scholars who put it together. 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It does seem like an innapropriate use of the quote, at least to me.

I recently listened to an interview with Brian Hauglid, one of the contributors to the essay. It was interesting hearing him talk a little bit about the back and forth that happened between the scholars and the church as the essays were being written. It was also interesting to hear him talk about the direct connection between the Book of Breathings fragment and the three early manuscripts of the BoA and how apologists largely don't address the connection.

 

Where was the interview, I'm curious if I've heard this one before, sounds interesting.  

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, hold the horses....

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/cherry-picking-the-book-of-abraham-essay/

Critics and apologetics...doing the same thing?

For the most part, much of Mormon church history is selective and out of context, this is just one small example with the Gospel Topics Essays, but this is common practice in all the curriculum.  Its such a wide problem that I wouldn't know where to start.  Many people are even scared to read a sympathetic biography on Joseph Smith like Rough Stone Rolling, precisely because the more transparent context that is revealed in that book causes them cognitive dissonance because it conflicts so strongly with the highly crafted narrative taught in Sunday School.  

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For the most part, much of Mormon church history is selective and out of context, this is just one small example with the Gospel Topics Essays, but this is common practice in all the curriculum.  Its such a wide problem that I wouldn't know where to start.  Many people are even scared to read a sympathetic biography on Joseph Smith like Rough Stone Rolling, precisely because the more transparent context that is revealed in that book causes them cognitive dissonance because it conflicts so strongly with the highly crafted narrative taught in Sunday School.  

I listened to a radio show a while back where the LDS guests were adamant that Richard Bushman was nearly apostate because of writing that book. Here's the radio program...http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/

Edited January 18, 2017 by Tacenda

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's probably more discouraging to learn that Brian Hauglid and others were involved on this reference was a result.  I'm saying it really hits you in the gut when you think the Church is really trying to open up, let the truth speak, but then things like this happen.  It hardly seems they could have overlooked it, if there was a crew of scholars who put it together. 

Judging by Brian's frank comments on the clear relationship between the Book of Breathings and the BoA manuscripts, he probably wasn't involved with the out-of-context quote.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Where was the interview, I'm curious if I've heard this one before, sounds interesting.  

Here it is: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/01/brian-hauglid-the-book-of-abraham/

[Thinking]

LifeOnAPlate called this quote mining. IMO the LDS Church is as guilty of quote mining as the critics are accused of being.

[pogi]

Read the paragraph which the footnote in question is referencing. From the BoA Essay:

Quote

Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham, but some insight can be gained from the Lord’s instructions to Joseph regarding translation. In April 1829, Joseph received a revelation for Oliver Cowdery that taught that both intellectual work and revelation were essential to translating sacred records. It was necessary to “study it out in your mind” and then seek spiritual confirmation. Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record[ s ]  and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”

Here is the footnote:

Quote

John Whitmer, History, 1831–ca. 1837, 76, in Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David J. Whittaker, eds., Histories, Volume 2: Assigned Historical Writings, 1831–1847, vol. 2 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 86. “I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven,” wrote Warren Parrish, Joseph Smith’s scribe. (Warren Parrish, Feb. 5, 1838, Letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, Feb. 15, 1838, [3].)

The author of this "cherry picking" article concludes: "Examining that footnote reveals something which reflects the scholarly character of the essay." 

Really?  

There were 46 footnotes in the essay, and he is attacking and discrediting the "character" of the entire essay because of this minuscule portion of a footnote, which is more like a footnote of a footnote.  Hello pot...talk about cherry picking!  The emphasis of the paragraph referenced was on John Whitmer.  Warren Parish is more like an after-thought and only served as supporting evidence.  Is there any doubt that Warren Parish, at the time of being Joseph's scribe, did indeed believe that Joseph received these things by inspiration as claimed in the essay?  While the letter referenced was written by a much more embittered Warren Parish, the portion of this letter quoted does shed light on how the translation occurred, and that Warren was once a believer himself.  I think it serves just fine as a legitimate reference for the paragraph in the essay.

Who's character is truly revealed here, the scholars of the essay, or this cherry picking hypocrite of an author?

Edited January 18, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

I have no idea why most of my post is crossed out or how to fix it.  The cross-out button was not used. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Read the paragraph which the footnote in question is referencing. From the BoA Essay:

Here is the footnote:

Here is the conclusion of the author of this "cherry picking" article: "Examining that footnote reveals something which reflects the scholarly character of the essay." 

Really?  There were 46 footnotes in the essay, and he is attacking and discrediting the "character" of the entire essay because of this minuscule portion of a footnote, which is more like a footnote of a footnote.  Hello pot...talk about cherry picking!  The emphasis of the paragraph referenced was on John Whitmer.  Warren Parish is more like an after-thought and only served as supporting evidence.  Is there any doubt that Warren Parish, at the time of being Joseph's scribe, did indeed believe that Joseph received these things by inspiration as claimed in the essay?  While the letter referenced was written by a much more embittered Warren Parish, the portion of this letter quoted does shed light on how the translation occurred, and that Warren was once a believer himself.  I think it serves just fine as a legitimate reference for the paragraph in the essay.

Who's character is truly revealed here, the scholars of the essay, or this cherry picking hypocrite of an author?

Add the context of Warren Parish's quote and it doesn't support Whitmer's claim.  One might very well read the quoted portion as something in today's world as written within quotation marks with the context added.  They are much better off, in this essay, to exclude Parish's words in my view.   

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have no idea why most of my post is crossed out or how to fix it.  The cross-out button was not used. 

Freudian slippage, no doubt. 

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, Thinking said:

LifeOnAPlate called this quote mining. IMO the LDS Church is as guilty of quote mining as the critics are accused of being.

Quote mining and prooftexting go hand in hand with all sides of religion.  That they are used by critics and apologetics alike should be no surprise.

But on the whole the essays have represented a great improvement in the transparency and honesty of the Church on historical issues.  With a few exceptions of course.
There will always be aspects of our Church history that will be downplayed and de-emphasized in official places.  But at least the bad representation of fact has been minimalized.

[cinepro]

It is very surprising that the Church would reference a letter written by someone who was arguing that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were "cheaters", "swindlers" and "liars".

This is the further quote.  The comment about the "Hieroglyphicks" is in the context of accusing Joseph of a list of frauds, the translation being one of them.  Then he talks about the Kirtland bank fiasco:

Therefore, we were sealed up unto eternal life in the name of Jesus Christ, as a reward for our suffering and obedience. I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven. I have listened to him with feelings of no ordinary kind, when he declared that the audible voice of God, instructed him to establish a Banking-Anti Banking institution, which like Aaron's rod should swallow up all other Banks (the Bank of Monroe excepted,) and grow and flourish and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins.

I have been astonished to hear him declare that we had 60,000 Dollars in specie in our vaults, and $600,000 at our command, when we had not to exceed $6,000 and could not command any more; also that we had but about ten thousand Dollars of our bills in circulation, when he, as Cashier of the institution, knew that there was at least $150,000. Knowing their extreme poverty when they commenced this speculation, I have been not a little surprised to hear them assert that they were worth from three to four hundred thousand Dollars Cash, and in less than ninety days after, became insolvent without any change in their business affairs.

But such has been the audacity of these boasting blasphemers, that they have assumed the authority to curse, or to bless, to damn, or to save, not only this Church but this entire generation, and that they hold their destinies in this world and that which is to come. And such has been their influence over this Church in this place, that they have filched the monies from their pockets and obtained their earthly substance for the purpose of establishing a Bank and various wild speculations, in order that they might aggrandize themselves and families, until they have reduced their followers to wretchedness and want. For the year past their lives have been one continued scene of lying, deception, and fraud, and that too, in the name of God.

 

http://scottwoodward.org/churchhistory_parrish_warren_letterofcondemnation.html

[JLHPROF]

 

 

Let's look at the actual essay quote for note 31:

• As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”³¹

 

And this is linked to a secondary footnote quote by Warren Parrish.
The claim is that the LDS essays are misleading by using this quote as evidence of revelation.
Bogus claim, because that is not being done.

First, the essay proper quotes only Whitmer, not Parish.  Was Whitmer's quote also accused of being taken out of context?

Second, the Parish quote was provided as secondary footnote reference to Whitmer's claim, not as a secondary claim.
Knowing what I know about Warren Parrish and the way he phrased things "as he claimed to receive it" it never occurred to me that this quote was supporting Joseph, nor was it used in any way in the essay to do anything other than establish the historicity of the revelatory claim being made at the time. 
In no way is Parish's quote used as his personal testimony that the book came by revelation.  It is merely used as historical record of  testimonies such as Whitmer's.
.
I view it as an accurate historical account of how members claimed the BoA came about.

Edited January 18, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It is very surprising that the Church would reference a letter written by someone who was arguing that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were "cheaters", "swindlers" and "liars".

Agreed.  But as I explained above, I don't think the Church is using the letter as testimony of revelation.  I think the Church is using the letter as a secondary historical reference for the revelatory claim made by Whitmer in the same footnote.

Kind of like if the Church reported Kate Kelly stating that the Church claimed revelation on the "November policy".  She's right they did.  But I don't think anyone would say she was claiming it WAS a revelation.

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

Let's look at the actual essay quote for note 31:

• As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”³¹

 

And this is linked to a secondary footnote quote by Warren Parrish.
The claim is that the LDS essays are misleading by using this quote as evidence of revelation.
Bogus claim, because that is not being done.

First, the essay proper quotes only Whitmer, not Parish.  Was Whitmer's quote also accused of being taken out of context?

Second, the Parish quote was provided as secondary footnote reference to Whitmer's claim, not as a secondary claim.
Knowing what I know about Warren Parrish and the way he phrased things "as he claimed to receive it" it never occurred to me that this quote was supporting Joseph, nor was it used in any way in the essay to do anything other than establish the historicity of the revelatory claim being made at the time. 
In no way is Parish's quote used as his personal testimony that the book came by revelation.  It is merely used as historical record of  testimonies such as Whitmer's.
.
I view it as an accurate historical account of how members claimed the BoA came about.

 

I don't think that's how footnotes work.  The claim is linked to footnote 31, thus everything in footnote 31 is implied to relate to the original claim.

Regarding Whitmer's quote, it could also be argued that the context has been altered, since this is the whole quote:

after this [e]xhibition Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records, which gave an account of our forefathers, [even Abraham] Much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren. Which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints.

^[4]

http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:Book_of_Abraham/Translation

So, 180 years later the Saints are still waiting to be "pleased" by Joseph of Egypt's writings..?

 

[cinepro]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.  But as I explained above, I don't think the Church is using the letter as testimony of revelation.  I think the Church is using the letter as a secondary historical reference for the revelatory claim made by Whitmer in the same footnote.

Kind of like if the Church reported Kate Kelly stating that the Church claimed revelation on the "November policy".  She's right they did.  But I don't think anyone would say she was claiming it WAS a revelation.

So is it okay if I use the letter as a "secondary historical reference" about Joseph's claims and doings regarding the Kirtland bank?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

So is it okay if I use the letter as a "secondary historical reference" about Joseph's claims and doings regarding the Kirtland bank?

Of course.  It is a contemporary account by a eyewitness, albeit a negatively biased one.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I don't think that's how footnotes work.  The claim is linked to footnote 31, thus everything in footnote 31 is implied to relate to the original claim.

And it does.  The Parish quote accurately describes the claims concerning the BoA that were being made at the time.  I find it largely irrelevant that Parish didn't believe those claims at the time the letter was written.  He is not testifying that they are true, only that the claim was made.

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to a radio show a while back where the LDS guests were adamant that Richard Bushman was nearly apostate because of writing that book. Here's the radio program...http://www.ldsanswers.org/lds-scholars-new-history-new-policy-new-church-defending-utah-ktalk-630-interview/

Thanks for sharing, I'll take a listen.  I believe that particular station is a hyper conservative talk radio station, but I haven't listened to it for a few years.  I didn't know they had religious content on that station, very interesting.  Thanks 

[Nevo]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saying it really hits you in the gut when you think the Church is really trying to open up, let the truth speak, but then things like this happen.  It hardly seems they could have overlooked it, if there was a crew of scholars who put it together. 

This strikes me as much ado about nothing. Parrish said he “penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as [Joseph Smith] claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven.”

Parrish's statement asserts two things:

• Parrish was a scribe for part of the Book of Abraham.
• JS claimed to receive the translation of the Book of Abraham by revelation ("direct inspiration of Heaven").

Neither assertion is remotely controversial. Parrish was Joseph Smith's scribe for the first chapters of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith did claim that the Book of Abraham was a divinely inspired translation.

The blog writer argues that "by using the quote in a manner which is the opposite of that intended by the original author, the Gospel Topic essay is specifically and deliberately misleading its readers by not providing the context of the excerpt – nor are they mentioning that the quoted individual previously served as Joseph’ scribe, but at the time he provided the quote – he was working to expose what he saw as criminal behavior by Joseph. He was not Joseph’s scribe when he wrote this letter, and he was not defending or confirming Joseph’s ability as a seer – contrary to what the footnote implies."

This is ridiculous. For starters, it's fairly well known that Parrish was a dissenter in 1838. Most members who've heard of Warren Parrish at all likely remember him as the main villain of the Kirtland Bank debacle and an apostate. Why would anyone imagine that the essay writers are trying to present Parrish as a believing member in good standing in 1838? The statement itself provides a big hint that Parrish himself didn't think the translation was inspired: "he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven." 

But given how little many members know about Church history, perhaps future revisions of the essay ought to make Parrish's non-belief more explicit, along the lines of the JSP's "Introduction to the Book of Abraham":

Quote

Little is known concerning the process JS employed in bringing forth the Book of Abraham, and only a few ambiguous observations are available. For instance, John Whitmer, an early church historian, recorded in July 1835 that JS “by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records, which gavee an account of our forefathers, even Abraham.” (Whitmer, History, 76) In a critical account published in the Painesville Republican in 1838, JS’s former scribe Warren Parrish noted that he had “set by his [JS’s] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven.” (Letter to the Editor dated 5 February 1838, Painesville Republican, 15 February 1838, Vol. II, No. 14–15).

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Nevo

[Woody]

The Warren Parrish quotation is used to establish that Joseph Smith told someone he worked on the BofA translation by revelation. In spite of the fact that Warren Parrish was misinterpreting many things, the fact remains that he did report that.

There is precedent. Acts 5 explains the Jewish senate's adoption of Gamaliel's counsel (to not kill the disciples) as evidence the Christians were endorsed by heaven, when it's obvious that the senate believed the opposite.

[Woody]

About the strikeouts: This board was obviously set up under the 'Design by Committee' paradigm and it isn't being maintained technically. How long has that announcement at the top been there about the "Contact Us" function not working?

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Woody said:

The Warren Parrish quotation is used to establish that Joseph Smith told someone he worked on the BofA translation by revelation. In spite of the fact that Warren Parrish was misinterpreting many things, the fact remains that he did report that.

There is precedent. Acts 5 explains the Jewish senate's adoption of Gamaliel's counsel (to not kill the disciples) as evidence the Christians were endorsed by heaven, when it's obvious that the senate believed the opposite.

This.  Exactly.  The Parish quote in no way claims he believed the BoA was translated by revelation and is not being put forward as such.  It is merely a secondary reference of the contemporary claim.
 

15 minutes ago, Woody said:

About the strikeouts: This board was obviously set up under the 'Design by Committee' paradigm and it isn't being maintained technically. How long has that announcement at the top been there about the "Contact Us" function not working?

I really wouldn't recommend complaining about the Mods.  They put a lot of time in maintaining this board.

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I have no idea why most of my post is crossed out or how to fix it.  The cross-out button was not used. 

It's crossed-out because the "[ s ]" in the Whitmer quote was interpreted by the board software as a start tag for strikeout text. Since there was no end tag [/s], everything was crossed out. You can fix it by inserting spaces on either side of the "s", as I did in the previous sentence, or you can remove the square brackets.