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

[Atheist Mormon]

On 1/21/2017 at 11:46 AM, Ouagadougou said:

 

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

I believe the RDLS (Community of Christ) treats the Book of Abraham as "speculative writing," but not as historical scripture.  

Do you think the church will ever change its position on the Book of Abraham in the foreseeable future?  

 

On the same same tone will Christianity abandon some of the most speculative, absurd books? 

Given a chance I'd start from "Book of Revelation" which Martin Luther called "Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic".

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

On the same same tone will Christianity abandon some of the most speculative, absurd books? 

Given a chance I'd start from "Book of Revelation" which Martin Luther called "Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic".

I have always thought that was a great picture of you!   You are the greatest evidence I know for Unchanging Truth!

"Life is change

How it differs from the rocks!

I've seen their ways too often for my liking!

New Worlds to gain!

My life is to survive, and be alive"

 

 

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

On the same same tone will Christianity abandon some of the most speculative, absurd books?

Given a chance I'd start from "Book of Revelation" which Martin Luther called "Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic".

As good a scholar as Martin Luther was, he probably didn't have the correct frame of reference to view the Book of Revelation.
There is much in there that required the restoration to understand.

[Atheist Mormon]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have always thought that was a great picture of you!   You are the greatest evidence I know for Unchanging Truth!

"Life is change

How it differs from the rocks!

I've seen their ways too often for my liking!

New Worlds to gain!

My life is to survive, and be alive"

 

 

Great taste of music for sure......

Unchanging truth or anything? Not so much. If it was static & unchanging we'd be stuck where we started long time ago. Even Church's motto is "Progressive Revelation".

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Unchanging truth or anything? Not so much. If it was static & unchanging we'd be stuck where we started long time ago. Even Church's motto is "Progressive Revelation".

I think you mean continuing revelation.
Progressive has quite a different connotation.

Although I think at times we have unfortunately veered from "continuing" in to so-called "progressive".

[Atheist Mormon]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think you mean continuing revelation.
Progressive has quite a different connotation.

Although I think at times we have unfortunately veered from "continuing" in to so-called "progressive".

Totally disagree...But that's fine.....

It's a good way to get stuck 2 thousand years with a conviction of an every firm believing Christian, Mormonism I know is not like that.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Great taste of music for sure......

Unchanging truth or anything? Not so much. If it was static & unchanging we'd be stuck where we started long time ago. Even Church's motto is "Progressive Revelation".

My point was that your brand of atheism has been refuted and is among the fossils of our time.

We now understand the importance of the direct experience of life as opposed to abstract third-party accounts.

Science is good for what it does but its usefulness is limited.

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My point was that your brand of atheism has been refuted and is among the fossils of our time.

We now understand the importance of the direct experience of life as opposed to abstract third-party accounts.

Science is good for what it does but its usefulness is limited.

Refuted by whom, Santa Claus? You can't refute something base3d on science and reality. It's not like you can refute other gods who are not your own. 

[blueglass]

On 1/22/2017 at 0:16 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Even if it were proven conclusively that no earthly source ever has existed which spawned the text now known as The Book of Abraham, that wouldn't preclude a totally supernatural origin.  (Heck, if we're going to use lack of [possession of] an original text as a basis for abandoning scripture, we'd also have to jettison The Book of Mormon.) I don't see that happening (in either case)).  

Even if Joseph Smith dictated the entire thing while standing on his head and simultaneously rubbing his head clockwise and rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, there are still complexities and nuances for which the perceptively and curiously wise must account.  By fomenting an undue focus on the how, the Adversary gets his victims to take their eyes off of a marvelous, miraculous what.  To abandon The Book of Abraham would be to give up a rich reservoir of distinctly Mormon doctrine.  

While I don't wish to cast aspersions on my devout Protestant brothers and sisters, whose Heavenly Father is as pleased with their sincere attempts to do what they believe He asks of them as he is with mine and those of my fellow Latter-day Saints, the world doesn't need another Protestant denomination: such a denomination with a faintly Mormon flavor already exists in the body of the Community of Christ.  Conversely, the world still desperately needs prophets with their attendant gifts.

I say we just rip out all the facsimiles and the translations of the figures as well as all references to the papyrus in the text.  Then we're left with midrash on Abraham/ quisas al anbiya folklore which has some doctrinal use.  

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I say we just rip out all the facsimiles and the translations of the figures as well as all references to the papyrus in the text.  Then we're left with midrash on Abraham/ quisas al anbiya folklore which has some doctrinal use.  

Duh.

Those are the most important parts as you agree but do not understand.  Read the thread.

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, blueglass said:

I say we just rip out all the facsimiles and the translations of the figures as well as all references to the papyrus in the text.  Then we're left with midrash on Abraham/ quisas al anbiya folklore which has some doctrinal use.  

With all due respect and in my (probably not humble enough) opinion, we don't yet have enough information to do that yet.  In order to justify that, it would have to be proven to a high degree of certainty that the fragments we do have are Joseph Smith's source for The Book of Abraham, and we are not, I don't believe, near that point.

If we're ready to throw up our hands and concede that The Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph Smith said it is, is it any wonder that we don't have other promised Latter-day Scripture, the revelation of which is predicated on how well we have received and understood what we do have?  Do we simply perfunctorily (out of a kind of muscle memory) sustain fifteen brethren as Prophets, and as Seers and Revelators (Wink-wink, nod-nod!) each time we're asked to do so without ever stopping to ponder what those terms (especially the latter two) actually mean?  

[Foreigner]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If we're ready to throw up our hands and concede that The Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph Smith said it is, is it any wonder that we don't have other promised Latter-day Scripture, the revelation of which is predicated on how well we have received and understood what we do have?

From introduction to PGP, the former version:

“The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”

The actual version:

“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

Conclusion no. 1: The Fifteen have already conceded that The Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph Smith said it is.

Conclusion no.2: Some apologists at this board have some homework to be done.

[Glenn101]

16 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

From introduction to PGP, the former version:

 

“The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”

 

The actual version:

 

“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

 

Conclusion no. 1: The Fifteen have already conceded that The Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph Smith said it is.

 

Conclusion no.2: Some apologists at this board have some homework to be done.

 

The Fifteen have not conceded that the Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph said it is. They have conceded that they do not know how the translation took place.

It isn't the homework that is the problem. It is interpretation of the evidence that we do have.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/5/2017 at 9:38 AM, Foreigner said:

From introduction to PGP, the former version:

“The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”

The actual version:

“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

Conclusion no. 1: The Fifteen have already conceded that The Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph Smith said it is.

Conclusion no.2: Some apologists at this board have some homework to be done.

You forgot to include the current intro to the Book of Abraham:

" A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr?lang=eng .

Both of your conclusions here are simply false.   Your homework assignment is to read my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  Depending on how you respond to that, you may be able to improve your grade from failing to passing.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/3/2017 at 11:56 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

On the same same tone will Christianity abandon some of the most speculative, absurd books? 

Given a chance I'd start from "Book of Revelation" which Martin Luther called "Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic".

Prof. Luther also considered the Epistle of James to be "an epistle of straw."  Why?  Because he didn't like doctrine preached therein by James the Brother of Jesus -- whose epistle is one of the earliest we have (contemporary with Pauline epistles).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/4/2017 at 10:24 AM, blueglass said:

I say we just rip out all the facsimiles and the translations of the figures as well as all references to the papyrus in the text.  Then we're left with midrash on Abraham/ quisas al anbiya folklore which has some doctrinal use.  

In actual context, there is nothing at all wrong with the three Illustrations accompanying the text of the Book of Abraham, as first published by Joseph Smith long ago.  The explanations for those three illustrations is right on target so often as to be beyond accidental correlation, as I summarize in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . 

[Gray]

On 2/3/2017 at 0:56 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

On the same same tone will Christianity abandon some of the most speculative, absurd books? 

Given a chance I'd start from "Book of Revelation" which Martin Luther called "Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic".

He was accidentally correct. It's apocalyptic, which isn't the same thing as prophetic or apostolic. 

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

He was accidentally correct. It's apocalyptic, which isn't the same thing as prophetic or apostolic.

Except it's not.  At least, not entirely.
There is as much gospel doctrine hidden throughout Revelation as there is prophesy or apocalyptic teaching.

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except it's not.  At least, not entirely.
There is as much gospel doctrine hidden throughout Revelation as there is prophesy or apocalyptic teaching.

I was referring to the genre of apocalyptic literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature 

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I was referring to the genre of apocalyptic literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature

 

I realize that.  "Apocalyptic literature details the authors' visions of the end times as revealed by an angel or other heavenly messenger".
Not everything in Revelation falls into that category.

Revelation 12 refers to premortality. 
Revelation 1-3 references the doctrines and blessings of exaltation as much as the end times, although it does address future exaltation.  Kind of like saying D&C 76 is apocalyptic because it speaks of the futre.
The first 5 seals appear to be a vision of the past, not an apocalyptic future, unless you consider the opening of a seal to be the revealing of the record of the past.

Basically, only some parts of Revelation are referring to end time visions and can be called Apocalyptic literature.  Much is not future based at all.

[hope_for_things]

On 2/4/2017 at 10:24 AM, blueglass said:

I say we just rip out all the facsimiles and the translations of the figures as well as all references to the papyrus in the text.  Then we're left with midrash on Abraham/ quisas al anbiya folklore which has some doctrinal use.  

I agree, and I think this is a step the church should take in the future.  Get rid of the facsimiles completely.  

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I realize that.  "Apocalyptic literature details the authors' visions of the end times as revealed by an angel or other heavenly messenger".
Not everything in Revelation falls into that category.

Revelation 12 refers to premortality. 
Revelation 1-3 references the doctrines and blessings of exaltation as much as the end times, although it does address future exaltation.  Kind of like saying D&C 76 is apocalyptic because it speaks of the futre.
The first 5 seals appear to be a vision of the past, not an apocalyptic future, unless you consider the opening of a seal to be the revealing of the record of the past.

Basically, only some parts of Revelation are referring to end time visions and can be called Apocalyptic literature.  Much is not future based at all.

Those are of course your interpretations, not necessarily what the author had in mind when writing it. 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Those are of course your interpretations, not necessarily what the author had in mind when writing it. 

Perhaps, although I'd like to see some evidence to that effect.

Take Revelation 12.

Quote

 

 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

 

This clearly describes the premortal "war in heaven" and the casting out of Satan and the 1/3 part of the hosts.
Even the usage of "there WAS war in heaven" describes a previous, not a future event.
So, unless you have more information, I stand by my statement that not all of Revelation is apocalyptic (end time) focused.  And as I stated to AtheistMormon's claim, I doubt Luther would have had the benefit of the restored gospel to recognize such things.

[Foreigner]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your homework assignment is to read my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  Depending on how you respond to that, you may be able to improve your grade from failing to passing.

Done. With all due respect, in my not very humble opinion, I know better. I am of different school.

Still, no offense for true apologists intended. At least, I like them more than philosophers, who insist, that there is no truth but testimony.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

..................................................... philosophers, who insist, that there is no truth but testimony.

You mean perhaps the claim by the physicist Werner Heisenberg that "it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth"? (from his Physics and Philosophy)  

Of course, Bertrand Russell pointed out that without belief or testimony there can be no truth or falsehood (Problems of Philosophy, chapter 12), which comports with Lehi's Law of Opposities.  So, are you suggesting that, for philosophers at least, since belief/testimony is prior to truth, therefore "there is no truth but testimony"?

Is Immanuel Kant correct to say that we cannot know the noumenon, but only the phenomenon?  Was Friedrich Nietzsche correct to say that "there are no facts, only interpretations"?  Is this what you are getting at?