LDS.org's Gospel Topic Essay BoA Quote

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

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." 

 

So, if Parrish believed that Joseph Smith was claiming to actually translate the "heiroglyphicks"  (as in, rendering the original meaning of the author of the heiroglyphicks in English), would he still be a good person to quote?

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

So, if Parrish believed that Joseph Smith was claiming to actually translate the "heiroglyphicks"  (as in, rendering the original meaning of the author of the heiroglyphicks in English), would he still be a good person to quote?

I think Parrish is a good person to quote if we're trying to determine what contemporary observers thought Joseph Smith was doing (or claiming to do) with the Book of Abraham. Of course, the Church now allows that Joseph may not have actually deciphered the writing on the papyri: "The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian. By the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham. . . . Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation."

Edited January 19, 2017 by Nevo

[Johnnie Cake]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, hold the horses....

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

Critics and apologetics...doing the same thing?

If ever there was a thread topic where one would think believers would want to put some distance between themselves and the authors of the BoA essay...you would think that this would be it...but no...instead believing posters are supporting the use of lies, whitewashing and distorting the true context of this quote to purposely misrepresent the true intent of author.  Shame on you...where is your sense of truth, honesty and doing what's right?

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If ever there was a thread topic where one would think believers would want to put some distance between themselves and the authors of the BoA essay...you would think that this would be it...but no...instead believing posters are supporting the use of lies, whitewashing and distorting the true context of this quote to purposely misrepresent the true intent of author.  Shame on you...where is your sense of truth, honesty and doing what's right?

Not even close to an accurate assessment of the situation.  This quote was not used out of context in any way.  To say otherwise is just disingenuous.
The quote's not even part of the essay.  It's a footnote backing up the contemporary claims of the Church at that time.  That's it, that's all.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 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/

Hogwash, Tacenda.  We should avoid such rumormongering about people like Bushman.  There is no reason to credit this rumor, and we have heard it before on this board.  Let those claimers provide their names and actual quotes from Bushman.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, hold the horses....

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

Critics and apologetics...doing the same thing?

Footnote 31, which is provided in the Essay (and the anti-Mormon article), gives immediate internet access to the Joseph Smith Papers volume from which the quote was taken, so anyone can see the whole quote for himself.  The overall context is not being hidden so much as it is irrelevant in that immediate context.  Banking issues really have nothing to do with translation of the Book of Abraham.  Were it germane, I would say provide the whole quote.  Otherwise it is a distraction.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours 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.

You are mistaken, Woody.  The great Rabbi Gamliel I (Paul's teacher) is not endorsing Christianity in Acts 5:34-39, but instead calling the attention of the Sanhedrin to past sects or movements which came to naught -- with the correct observation that, if it be of God, no purpose would be served by fighting it.  The Sanhedrin wisely agreed.

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If ever there was a thread topic where one would think believers would want to put some distance between themselves and the authors of the BoA essay...you would think that this would be it...but no...instead believing posters are supporting the use of lies, whitewashing and distorting the true context of this quote to purposely misrepresent the true intent of author.  Shame on you...where is your sense of truth, honesty and doing what's right?

Here's a passage from Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism that will make you livid. You'd better sit down:

Quote

"Pomeroy Tucker, the Palmyra printer's devil and later historian, said Martin's conclusion was that 'God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.' 'The very fact that Smith was an obscure and illiterate man' and could translate, the local Episcopal priest remembered Martin saying, was proof that Joseph 'must be acting under divine impulses.' The typesetter for the Book of Mormon said Martin returned satisfied that Joseph 'was a little smarter than Professor Anthon'" (89).

Nowhere in the passage does Bushman inform the reader that all three of his sources here also made statements highly critical of Mormonism (Tucker called it "an illustration of the susceptibilities of human credulity," John A. Clark "delusion," and John H. Gilbert "a monstrous fraud and humbug"). He used their words in a sympathetic biography of the Prophet and they weren't even believers! Even worse, particularly dense readers might come away with the impression that the Episcopal priest thought that Joseph Smith was acting under divine impulses. Or that Gilbert was still typesetting the Book of Mormon in 1892, when he made the statement that Bushman quotes. I don't know how Bushman's reputation survived intact after perpetrating such an outrage.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Nevo

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Nevo said:

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":

 

Thanks for the response Nevo.   I'm sure you have a good point here, but I do have some questions in light of what you said.

"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

What?  "most members?" In my experience most members have no knowledge of the Kirtland Bank debacle at all.  TO qualify it as "most members who have heard of Warren Parrish" doesn't really present the essay as something written for the average member.  Also, members, I'm guessing, have no real timeline in their mind as to when Parrish's dissent took place, nor would I guess does the average member know Parrish dissented.  The year, I think, wouldn't help most members.

""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." "

I honestly do not think saying "claimed" suggests Parrish didn't think the translation was inspired.  Surely when he was acting as scribe, he surely did think the translation was inspired.  But later, when he wrote the statement in question, it's likely he did not.  Also, I'd suggest that "neither assertion" (which you noted above) is remotely controversial, I'd say using Parrish' quote in the footnote is pointless.  There's no reason, at this point, to quote a defector to say Joseph saw the translation as inspired, particularly when the ultimate point of the quote was to suggest Joseph was a fraud, essentially. 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hogwash, Tacenda.  We should avoid such rumormongering about people like Bushman.  There is no reason to credit this rumor, and we have heard it before on this board.  Let those claimers provide their names and actual quotes from Bushman.

I think she was mocking the ridiculous nature of the claim that scholars like Bushman, who add context and nuance to the traditional narrative, are apostates. I've heard the interview and it really is a hit piece on Bushman. I agree that it seems absurd to cast aspersions on a scholar like Bushman, yet the ultra conservative/orthodox are doing just that.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hogwash, Tacenda.  We should avoid such rumormongering about people like Bushman.  There is no reason to credit this rumor, and we have heard it before on this board.  Let those claimers provide their names and actual quotes from Bushman.

Did you listen to the radio show, should I point out where they align him?

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think she was mocking the ridiculous nature of the claim that scholars like Bushman, who add context and nuance to the traditional narrative, are apostates. I've heard the interview and it really is a hit piece on Bushman. I agree that it seems absurd to cast aspersions on a scholar like Bushman, yet the ultra conservative/orthodox are doing just that.

Thank you, I wish I had the ability to put two words together today!! 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation."

Which means Mormons have to make up their own unique  definition of translate to get the claims of Joseph Smith to work. 

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If ever there was a thread topic where one would think believers would want to put some distance between themselves and the authors of the BoA essay...you would think that this would be it...but no...instead believing posters are supporting the use of lies, whitewashing and distorting the true context of this quote to purposely misrepresent the true intent of author.  Shame on you...where is your sense of truth, honesty and doing what's right?

Can you be specific.  Why don't you give us a summary of what has been said so that we can hang our heads in shame.

Edited January 19, 2017 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Can you be specific.  Why don't you give us a summary of what has been said so that we can hang our heads in shame.

It's probably that we all come from different prospectives.

[hope_for_things]

23 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 listened to the program and was flabbergasted.  I had no idea such an organized group of really fundamentalists Mormons existed.  They have this whole Joseph Smith Foundation I wasn't familiar with, I had heard of ldsanswers before, and the heartland model, but I had no idea this organization existed, seems fairly well funded too.  I spend a little time on their website and they seem very similar to the fundamentalist Christian groups that believe in a 6000 year old earth and have anti science and anti evolution themes.  

I was surprised on the radio interview how they were portraying mainstream Mormon historians (apologetic historians no less) like Richard Bushman and Margaret Young as enemies of truth and history revisionists.  They were even disparaging FAIR Mormon saying many of its members are too liberal.  Quite the interesting look into a group that I wasn't aware existed, but I'm not entirely surprised at the same time since we see this same thing happening in evangelical Christian groups.  They even portrayed this liberal history revisionist movement as attacking Christianity at large.  

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing, I listened to the program and was flabbergasted.  I had no idea such an organized group of really fundamentalists Mormons existed.  They have this whole Joseph Smith Foundation I wasn't familiar with, I had heard of ldsanswers before, and the heartland model, but I had no idea this organization existed, seems fairly well funded too.  I spend a little time on their website and they seem very similar to the fundamentalist Christian groups that believe in a 6000 year old earth and have anti science and anti evolution themes.  

I was surprised on the radio interview how they were portraying mainstream Mormon historians (apologetic historians no less) like Richard Bushman and Margaret Young as enemies of truth and history revisionists.  They were even disparaging FAIR Mormon saying many of its members are too liberal.  Quite the interesting look into a group that I wasn't aware existed, but I'm not entirely surprised at the same time since we see this same thing happening in evangelical Christian groups.  They even portrayed this liberal history revisionist movement as attacking Christianity at large.  

I think that group represent most LDS, IMO. Or at least most I know in person. Richard Bushman isn't on many people I know's radar at all. They would probably be flabbergasted to hear or read what he's said in his RSR book. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think that group represent most LDS, IMO. Or at least most I know in person. Richard Bushman isn't on many people I know's radar at all. They would probably be flabbergasted to hear or read what he's said in his RSR book. 

I think their beliefs are much more fundamentalist than most LDS and likely those you know unless they believe in some variation of the Adam-God theories.

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think their beliefs are much more fundamentalist than most LDS and likely those you know unless they believe in some variation of the Adam-God theories.

The people I know, I would find it hard to believe that they even know about the Adam-God theories. They would think that it's anti stuff.

[Calm]

Exactly.

My understanding is that these are quite fundamentalist, outside of currently practicing polygamy.

From what I have read, if an LDS is mainstream they will be seen as espousing some apostate belief.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think that group represent most LDS, IMO. Or at least most I know in person. Richard Bushman isn't on many people I know's radar at all. They would probably be flabbergasted to hear or read what he's said in his RSR book. 

I disagree, I think those people represent a minority of Mormons.  I do agree with you that many Mormons aren't familiar with the Richard Bushmans of the world, or historigraphy and scholarship on Mormon Studies, but I think they are also unfamiliar with these kinds of literalist/fundamentalist apologetics as well.  I think most mainstream Mormons are familiar with the CES curriculum and that's about the extent of it.  Maybe I'm wrong here, but thats been my experience.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I had no idea such an organized group of really fundamentalists Mormons existed.  They have this whole Joseph Smith Foundation I wasn't familiar with, I had heard of ldsanswers before, and the heartland model, but I had no idea this organization existed, seems fairly well funded too.  I spend a little time on their website and they seem very similar to the fundamentalist Christian groups that believe in a 6000 year old earth and have anti science and anti evolution themes. 

 

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think their beliefs are much more fundamentalist than most LDS and likely those you know unless they believe in some variation of the Adam-God theories.

 

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The people I know, I would find it hard to believe that they even know about the Adam-God theories. They would think that it's anti stuff.

You should attend a Utah home schooling convention, like LDSHEA.  Absolutely full of people like this.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree, I think those people represent a minority of Mormons.  I do agree with you that many Mormons aren't familiar with the Richard Bushmans of the world, or historigraphy and scholarship on Mormon Studies, but I think they are also unfamiliar with these kinds of literalist/fundamentalist apologetics as well.  I think most mainstream Mormons are familiar with the CES curriculum and that's about the extent of it.  Maybe I'm wrong here, but thats been my experience.

You're not wrong.
It has been my experience in both family and ward that most members limit their reading to official manuals, scriptures, and the occasional inspirational book by a current GA etc.
Most members I know have little interest in going beyond that in their studies and reading.

Fortunately, there are many on this board that do.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You're not wrong.
It has been my experience in both family and ward that most members limit their reading to official manuals, scriptures, and the occasional inspirational book by a current GA etc.
Most members I know have little interest in going beyond that in their studies and reading.

Fortunately, there are many on this board that do.

Its been interesting this year with the new resources linked in the Sunday School material, like the Topics essays and the JSP resources.  I've tried bringing some of this up during class with limited success.  The teachers don't seem interested in some cases or even aware of it in others.  I'm contemplating having a discussing with the SS president and or someone in the Bishopric about it.  If the church is going to spend the money and resources on these materials, I think the members should be getting familiar with them.  

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Its been interesting this year with the new resources linked in the Sunday School material, like the Topics essays and the JSP resources.  I've tried bringing some of this up during class with limited success.  The teachers don't seem interested in some cases or even aware of it in others.  I'm contemplating having a discussing with the SS president and or someone in the Bishopric about it.  If the church is going to spend the money and resources on these materials, I think the members should be getting familiar with them.

Yeahhhh....good luck with that.

No, in all seriousness, the Church has been pretty consistent in its desire to keep Sunday School, RS/PH, and other lessons limited to first principles.  And many many safeguards have been put in place to prevent speculation from overtaking revealed doctrine.
Both good and bad, so perhaps they are wise to err on the side of caution and leave each member responsible for their own doctrinal growth.  In the end we won't be able to blame the Church at the judgment bar if we don't learn and grow on our own initiative.