Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

As Dallin Oaks said, the church doesn't seek apologies, "and we don't give them". No repentance. Surely that's not healthy. 

Love means never having to say you're sorry. 

[Thinking]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It might be easier for you to grasp when considered in light of this passage from Isaiah 55:

IMO that passage from Isaiah 55 is tossed around too much for the purpose of not having to explain alleged mistakes.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If God or the Church has promised a complete and perfect restoration of all truth that could be consumed like a pill at baptism and comprehended and applied perfectly by the community entire from the start, I would be sad.  But as it happens, I've read the contract carefully to see exactly what I should expect.  And it happens that realistic expectations go a long way towards reducing disappointment.

Notice the bits about "their weakness"... the blunt statement that "they erred", the express condition about "seeking wisdom" and coming before instruction, and that knowledge comes from time to time.

Just saying... again

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Interestingly, it looks like the verses you cited have been quoted this many times in Conference over the years:

 

[25-26] - 1

[25 - 27] - 1

[26 - 28] - 1

[27] - 3

[28] - 6

http://scriptures.byu.edu/#::c12e01

Now, take verse 38, which might lead someone to the opposite conclusion about our leaders being mistaken about decades-long policy and doctrinal matters:

 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

It has been cited 110 times in Conference over the years.

So while the verses you cited may be useful when trying to argue that the Church for decades "borrowed" false doctrines from apostate Christendom and based a devastatingly exclusionary policy that kept men out of the priesthood and families out of the Temple for over a century on those mistakes, the other verse about our leaders saying the same things God would say seems to be a little more relevant to what our leaders want us to think.

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Interestingly, it looks like the verses you cited have been quoted this many times in Conference over the years:

[25-26] - 1

[25 - 27] - 1

[26 - 28] - 1

[27] - 3

[28] - 6

http://scriptures.byu.edu/#::c12e01

Now, take verse 38, which might lead someone to the opposite conclusion about our leaders being mistaken about decades-long policy and doctrinal matters:

It has been cited 110 times in Conference over the years.

So while the verses you cited may be useful when trying to argue that the Church for decades "borrowed" false doctrines from apostate Christendom and based a devastatingly exclusionary policy that kept men out of the priesthood and families out of the Temple for over a century on those mistakes, the other verse about our leaders saying the same things God would say seems to be a little more relevant to what our leaders want us to think.

As a believer, I rather think that God is my most important leader, and by being explicit about "the authority of my servants" in verses 25-28 and making those verses easily and freely available to anyone who wants to read for themselves, it seems to me he wants me to understand that I can get quite a bit further along by seeking on my own what God wants me to think, reading the scriptures and "out of the best books words of wisdom" than by waiting to be spoon fed.  Isaiah 29 nicely distinguishes between seeking "whether things are so" and "seeking to make a man an offender for a word." 

Since I read with a clear understanding of the previous blunt statements regarding the weaknesses of LDS members as part of the immediate context of D&C 1:38, it is obvious to me that Jesus does not intend anyone to suppose that everything a church leader says is the same thing has what God says, but rather that I should trust what God says whether it comes by his own voice or by the voice of his servants.  Which means, I don't have to let the obvious weaknesses in human nature make me reflexively cynical, except, of course, with respect to the possibility of beams in my own eye, which I ought to regularly remove to ensure that I can see clearly.

Just saying,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Is there a "Thus saith the Lord" in anything that has to do with the ban or the essay?

I don't concede that is a requirement.

From President Benson:

 

Quote

 

… The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

If God's thoughts are higher than ours, then surely the priesthood ban was a mistake. God's thoughts are not supposed to be lower or on the same level as ours. 

You're not getting the concept.

If God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, there will be occasions when He does things that we don't immediately understand.

In writing the above, you are -- unwittingly, perhaps -- placing your thoughts higher than God's thoughts by implying that you have to immediately agree with each and everything He does before you will accept it.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

IMO that passage from Isaiah 55 is tossed around too much for the purpose of not having to explain alleged mistakes.

IMO, statements such as the above are tossed around too much for the purpose of excusing one's rejection of things prophets say that one does not agree with.

I'll return to a theme I voiced a short time ago on this board: Prophets are not infallible, but neither are they untrustworthy or unreliable.

Critics of the Church, on the other hand, ...

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're not getting the concept.

If God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, there will be occasions when He does things that we don't immediately understand.

In writing the above, you are -- unwittingly, perhaps -- placing your thoughts higher than God's thoughts by implying that you have to immediately agree with each and everything He does before you will accept it.

I think we all get what racism is about. Those "thoughts" are pretty typical of 19th century attitudes, and pretty far beneath the attitudes of most folks today. Given the assumption that God's thoughts are supposed to be higher, we can safely reject the priesthood ban as unworthy of any association with God. God deserves better than to have his good name besmirched by the association. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think we all get what racism is about. Those "thoughts" are pretty typical of 19th century attitudes, and pretty far beneath the attitudes of most folks today. Given the assumption that God's thoughts are supposed to be higher, we can safely reject the priesthood ban as unworthy of any association with God. God deserves better than to have his good name besmirched by the association. 

God's reasons for instituting the restriction and sustaining it for so long, even as prophets were petitioning Him for guidance pertaining to it, might have nothing to do with racism as you, with your limited, worldly capacity, understand the concept.

That's what is entailed in the concept of God's thoughts being higher than mortal thoughts.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As a believer, I rather think that God is my most important leader, and by being explicit about "the authority of my servants" in verses 25-28 and making those verses easily and freely available to anyone who wants to read for themselves, it seems to me he wants me to understand that I can get quite a bit further along by seeking on my own what God wants me to think, reading the scriptures and "out of the best books words of wisdom" than by waiting to be spoon fed.  Isaiah 29 nicely distinguishes between seeking "whether things are so" and "seeking to make a man an offender for a word." 

Since I read with a clear understanding of the previous blunt statements regarding the weaknesses of LDS members as part of the immediate context of D&C 1:38, it is obvious to me that Jesus does not intend anyone to suppose that everything a church leader says is the same thing has what God says, but rather that I should trust what God says whether it comes by his own voice or by the voice of his servants.  Which means, I don't have to let the obvious weaknesses in human nature make me reflexively cynical, except, of course, with respect to the possibility of beams in my own eye, which I ought to regularly remove to ensure that I can see clearly.

Just saying,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Let's look at exactly what that passage says and does not say- let's be the most literal of the literalists for a moment

Quote

 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

1- The Lord has spoken what he has spoken.  Whether or not we HAVE what the Lord has spoken is another issue

2- His Word shall not pass away, but be fulfilled.   No question about that - but again- do we HAVE "HIS WORD"?  His word comes to us via imperfect humans.  How are we to know his word? By the Spirit though another imperfect human mind- our own, depending on our worthiness, ability to understand his word etc.

3- Who will fulfill his word?  Either HE will himself or his servants will- whoever actually DOES fulfill HIS WORD, it will be the same.  It doesn't matter if his servants fulfill his word or not, but it WILL be fulfilled whether or not we are able to do so.  IF his servants get it right, his will will be fulfilled by his servants- if not, he will have to do it himself.

This passage in no way "justifies mistakes".   It does NOT say that whatever the brethren do is the will of the Lord.

In fact it says just the opposite

Speaking colloquially it says "If you guys get it wrong, I will have to do it myself, but my Word WILL be fulfilled."

It does not say that the word of his servants is HIS word.

It is talking about how his word is FULFILLED - not whether or not we have correctly received or are performing his word.

It says that his word will be FULFILLED either by him OR his servants - whichever fulfills it, "it is the same"

The words are not "the same"- the fulfillment is the same.  THAT is what the sentence is saying.

The subject of the clause is "My word" the predicate is "shall be fulfilled", the rest is simply talking about who might be able to fulfill it, including his servants.

I don't see how the grammar can be disputed.

BUT is that the Word of the Lord to begin with??

Edited January 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 1/24/2017 at 1:53 PM, stemelbow said:

That's certainly my hope, but I don't know the intent.  That paragraph outlines the explanations for the ban, and then condemns past racism.  I'd quess the intent of the writers were to stick to condemning the explanations and not the ban--as condemning the ban explicitly they might incur the ire of the leaders.  But, since they left it open, I'm going to go with the notion that the ban is being condemned as well.  Might as well.  The Church might not budge any closer to condemning the ban than that.  And I'm afraid to ask lest they go with a clarification that supports the ban as inspired and back tracks that notion that they condemn "all racism, past and present, in any form". 

Shoot...I really hope they don't fix the essay now. 

1- This whole discussion of racism is clearly a derail

2- "Racism" was not invented until 1902.  Of course it was believed by many that not seeing all God's children as brothers was wrong, but using "racism" is presentism.

Quote

 

The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.

"Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism."

Although Pratt might have been the first person to inveigh against racism and its deleterious effects by name, he is much better-remembered for a very different coinage: Kill the Indian...save the man.

"A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."

We're still living with the after-effects of what Pratt thought and did. His story serves as a useful parable for why discussions of racism remain so deeply contentious even now.

 

In other words, eliminate "Indian" culture to save the human trapped in the culture.  I am sure that today's condemnation of racism today does not include stamping out cultures-  I personally find this supposed condemnation of "racism" is one of the most racist things I have seen written.   The point is that "racism" today is not the "racism" of yesterday.

3- Arguably the priesthood ban which we now see as "racist" was formulated exactly to protect Mormonism from racial segregation.  Mormons were not considered as "white".

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071

http://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/rethinking-the-mormon-racial-story

Edited January 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

23 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As a believer, I rather think that God is my most important leader, and by being explicit about "the authority of my servants" in verses 25-28 and making those verses easily and freely available to anyone who wants to read for themselves, it seems to me he wants me to understand that I can get quite a bit further along by seeking on my own what God wants me to think, reading the scriptures and "out of the best books words of wisdom" than by waiting to be spoon fed.  Isaiah 29 nicely distinguishes between seeking "whether things are so" and "seeking to make a man an offender for a word." 

Since I read with a clear understanding of the previous blunt statements regarding the weaknesses of LDS members as part of the immediate context of D&C 1:38, it is obvious to me that Jesus does not intend anyone to suppose that everything a church leader says is the same thing has what God says, but rather that I should trust what God says whether it comes by his own voice or by the voice of his servants.  Which means, I don't have to let the obvious weaknesses in human nature make me reflexively cynical, except, of course, with respect to the possibility of beams in my own eye, which I ought to regularly remove to ensure that I can see clearly.

Just saying,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

I don't believe what you're saying, and I don't think you believe it either.   Mod: When you can produce the polygraph, get back to us. Meanwhile be respectful. 

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.  Using your "clear understanding", can you identify any current things which are taught as doctrine or policies in the Church which are false and incorrect (especially if borrowed from apostate Christendom) and go against what God would actually say?

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

I don't believe what you're saying, and I don't think you believe it either.  

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.  Using your "clear understanding", can you identify any current things which are taught as doctrine or policies in the Church which are false and incorrect (especially if borrowed from apostate Christendom) and go against what God would actually say?

I think Kevin is too nice to say this but who the H do you think you are to tell him what he believes??

And why the sam hill should he give a flying you know what to prove you wrong?  I essentially said the same thing in my post above so I guess put me on the list of people to prove to you what we believe and hold your breath until you get your proof.

Edited January 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ouagadougou]

On 22.01.2017 at 6:05 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

there is no legitimate claim that a text written by Abraham 'ended up in a random funerary text.'

The events surrounding how Joseph's Smith obtained the "multiple scrolls of papyrus" is listed below in the essay:

"The powerful truths found in the book of Abraham emerged from a set of unique historical events. In the summer of 1835, an entrepreneur named Michael Chandler arrived at Church headquarters in Kirtland, Ohio, with four mummies and multiple scrolls of papyrus.¹² Chandler found a ready audience. Due partly to the exploits of the French emperor Napoleon, the antiquities unearthed in the catacombs of Egypt had created a fascination across the Western world.¹³Chandler capitalized on this interest by touring with ancient Egyptian artifacts and charging visitors a fee to see them.

These artifacts had been uncovered by Antonio Lebolo, a former cavalryman in the Italian army. Lebolo, who oversaw some of the excavations for the consul general of France, pulled 11 mummies from a tomb not far from the ancient city of Thebes. Lebolo shipped the artifacts to Italy, and after his death, they ended up in New York. At some point the mummies and scrolls came into Chandler’s possession."

Joseph Smith only came into his possession of these scrolls because of Chandler's roadshow. When Joseph Smith "translated" the papyrus, he did not mention that it was, in fact, a funerary text.  He claimed it was written by the hand of Abraham himself (not copies of copies over thousands of years of Abraham's writings).  Didn't Joseph Smith also claim to have translated the Book of Joseph as well?  What are the chances that the writings of Abraham and the Book of Joseph were with the same mummies Chandler had in his possession?  

How is it that a funerary text would lead to such diving translation/channeling, when "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham?"  

The church can't claim it was a "translation" because a translation did not occur.

"Translation: the process of translating words or text from one language into another" 

Conversely, a failed translation occurred according to the fragments that DO exist because "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham."  

I base my belief that the Book of Abraham is a fraud because of the evidence (existing fragments) we DO have today, not on the notion that some other fragments might have some mention of Abraham's name.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N01_155.pdf

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're not getting the concept.

If God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, there will be occasions when He does things that we don't immediately understand.

In writing the above, you are -- unwittingly, perhaps -- placing your thoughts higher than God's thoughts by implying that you have to immediately agree with each and everything He does before you will accept it.

Let's not look past the real intent of Gray's meaning. He is well aware that the higher thoughts trope is normally employed to justify things we attribute to God. He knows that,just like every other Mormon knows that.

He is suggesting that because the ban, from everything we know about it, looks like a product of racism and culture, we should consider the possibility that it wasn't God's higher thoughts that produced it. I personally feel that God applauds when we explore, learn, and question.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

The events surrounding how Joseph's Smith obtained the "multiple scrolls of papyrus" is listed below in the essay:

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

Joseph Smith only came into his possession of these scrolls because of Chandler's roadshow. When Joseph Smith "translated" the papyrus, he did not mention that it was, in fact, a funerary text.  He claimed it was written by the hand of Abraham himself (not copies of copies over thousands of years of Abraham's writings).  Didn't Joseph Smith also claim to have translated the Book of Joseph as well?  What are the chances that the writings of Abraham and the Book of Joseph were with the same mummies Chandler had in his possession?  

How is it that a funerary text would lead to such diving translation/channeling, when "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham?"  

The church can't claim it was a "translation" because a translation did not occur.

"Translation: the process of translating words or text from one language into another" 

Conversely, a failed translation occurred according to the fragments that DO exist because "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham."  

I base my belief that the Book of Abraham is a fraud because of the evidence (existing fragments) we DO have today, not on the notion that some other fragments might have some mention of Abraham's name.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N01_155.pdf

So, you now admit that the Gospel Topics Essay did not make the statements you claimed.  Good.  You will note that Stephen Thompson's Dialogue article is quite different from the Gospel Topics Essay:

 

Quote

 

Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure.

Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.

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

 

 

Stephen Thompson's problem is the fallacy of the excluded middle term of his premises.  He wants the Book of Abraham to be fraudulently taken from the Sensen text.  The Sensen Text is not the Book of Abraham, on that all agree.  But for the sake of proving fraud, Thompson must make it so.  Thus, despite lack of evidence that Joseph thought the Sensen text was the Book of Abraham, Thompson merely assumes that to have been the case.  He might have made a more inclusive examination of the issue, but that may not have suited his shallow preconceptions.

 

 

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...

Prophets are not infallible, but neither are they untrustworthy or unreliable...

Okay, I'll bite.  Exactly how trustworthy & reliable is their fallibility, Scott?  Let me guess - very!

--Erik

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Let's not look past the real intent of Gray's meaning. He is well aware that the higher thoughts trope is normally employed to justify things we attribute to God. He knows that,just like every other Mormon knows that.

He is suggesting that because the ban, from everything we know about it, looks like a product of racism and culture, we should consider the possibility that it wasn't God's higher thoughts that produced it. I personally feel that God applauds when we explore, learn, and question.

I understand quite well what he wrote. And I think he is doing more than just considering a possibility. I think he is drawing a hard-and-fast conclusion. 

Again, we must not lose sight of the fact that Church leaders earnestly sought the will of the Lord for many years before president Kimball received the revelation in 1978. That doesn't seem to me like men enclosed in their own prejudices impervious to the influence of the Holy Spirit. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Okay, I'll bite.  Exactly how trustworthy & reliable is their fallibility, Scott?  Let me guess - very!

--Erik

What does that even mean?

Never mind. I'm not interested in the explanation. 

[Five Solas]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What does that even mean?

Never mind. I'm not interested in the explanation. 

I merely took the "in" out of your "infallible" and the "un" out of your "untrustworthy" and your "unreliable."  And then I played it back to you without your preceding "not" / "neither" which you had used to create a double negative.  So if you think that was confusing--merely revisit your original...

;0)

--Erik

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

God's reasons for instituting the restriction and sustaining it for so long, even as prophets were petitioning Him for guidance pertaining to it, might have nothing to do with racism as you, with your limited, worldly capacity, understand the concept.

That's what is entailed in the concept of God's thoughts being higher than mortal thoughts.

God deserves better than this. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Gray

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It might be easier for you to grasp when considered in light of this passage from Isaiah 55:

 

 

Yep, that is the best explanation for the ban being of God.  It just seems like with the ban being in place for over a century, God might have revealed a little of "His thoughts & ways" on the matter to the prophet.  I guess not.

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep, that is the best explanation for the ban being of God.  It just seems like with the ban being in place for over a century, God might have revealed a little of "His thoughts & ways" on the matter to the prophet.  I guess not.

If you accept that His ways are higher than man's ways, you have to accept that He may have reasons that aren't immediately clear for not delivering daily briefings to a prophet on this or that thing.

You can either rail against that fact or you can have faith that in due time all things will be made known to those who wait on the Lord.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you accept that His ways are higher than man's ways, you have to accept that He may have reasons that aren't immediately clear for not delivering daily briefings to a prophet on this or that thing.

You can either rail against that fact or you can have faith that in due time all things will be made known to those who wait on the Lord.

If a church gets their said precepts from God..how is it that His ways were higher?  This doesn't make sense Scott.  I would like to think that God has no prejudices.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If a church gets their said precepts from God..how is it that His ways were higher?  This doesn't make sense Scott.  I would like to think that God has no prejudices.

God has every prejudice.  He knows us better than we know ourselves.  He knows what choices we are likely to make.  All things past, present, and future are before him.

So if God says "these ones are my chosen" or "here are the noble and great ones I will make my leaders" to some and not to others is that prejudice?
Yes, he is pre-judging his children based on what he knows about them.  That is why his ways are higher.  He has better understanding of us than we do.

But he still gives us agency.