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

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

For those who do not believe in revelation there can be no answer- for those who do, there can be no question.

I wish I knew who wrote that, but it is pretty great stuff

As with all generalisations the "no answers" and "no questions" idea would seem to not hold any water. Joseph Smith started only with questions. And if faith means not asking questions then it would require locking up some sections of reason and thinking. I would think that maintaining powers of discernment essential to maintaining a belief.....or else be fooled by any charlatan who came along.

If not believing in revelation means questioning every and anything that comes around, then I'm all for it. Answers, to me, are not as important as the questions. As soon as one answer pops up, there should be a whole new flood of questions. Answers are not a place or a final destination. It's not like boarding a train and being totally satisfied once you pull into the final station. I think the final destination is a mythical place. Or rather, death will have to do as a final destination until something better shows up. 

[6EQUJ5]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL! They are worse than that- I find metaphysics mostly useless jabbering.  What you cite has nothing to do with metaphysics- it is about a useful paradigm that works in chemistry.

Yeah.... I never said my example was metaphysics.  I was using observable physics and chemistry to demonstrate how absurd your metaphysical assertions are.  It's not a "useful paradigm", it is an easily demonstrable fact.

If you don't understand the difference I'm not sure we will be able to have a constructive conversation.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"The electromagnetic force"?  That is almost as good as "immaterial substance".  Just a tad simplistic I think.

I'm sorry.  Did you want me to get into the details of electrons, up and down quarks along with other quantum particles?

I'm curious why you put "electromagnetic force" in scare quotes.  Do you reject the phenomenon's existence and what we have been able to demonstrate about how if functions?

And as you know, when making a simple point, simple examples are appropriate.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How does your simplistic high school chemistry relate to string theory since you want to discuss "reality"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Pro-tip: when trying to argue about what is real or not, citing String Theory may not be the best example to bolster your argument. Pretty math, no evidence (yet). Maybe string theory is correct but for now I'm going to stick with actual science that produces theories, develops experiements, and then confirms those theories through observation.  M-theory -- and other variants -- are still on step one.

And again, I'm making a simple point: your assertions about "history that remote is what you think it is" are not only absurd, they deny the historical reality of the Gospel.  History isn't what we think it is.  History is what actually happened.  But hey, if you want to think a belief in Leprechaun invasion of Ireland in 1093 AD where they arrived on the Titanic and rode in on unicorns slaughtering thousands with their swords made of cheese, go for it.  But don't try and pass it off as history.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Read Rorty's "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature".  This is a book which defines a trend away from meta-narratives including your sacred science, viewing it as a useful paradigm which really does not help us define "reality" very well.  Susskind, the "discoverer" of black holes says we may never understand reality.  http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

Here is a scholarly article about Rorty, whose views on this question I follow.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Have you read anyone other than Rorty, James, and Wittgenstein? If you would be so kind, I'm curious to know who you think Rorty's most formidable critics are and why.  Double points for doing this without googling.  The philosophy of language and the pragmatic theory of truth are interesting.  But there's a big world out there.  I think you would like it.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, but I think this question of "reality" and how we speak about it is not quite as simple as you think it is. 

I know.  You state this in almost every post. 

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The "reality" of space and time?  Well I suppose it all depends on how deep you want to take the question.

Let's go down the rabbit hole!  I'd love to discuss this in great depth with you.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 Have a good life- I will probably not respond to you much unless you show some understanding of the real issues here- I really don't have the time, I have been through this so many times before here.

I understand the issues you present, I can assure you.

But don't run away because you are being challenged.

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been through this so many times before here.  

Yes, I know.  Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on this board knows this as well.  You have a philosophical crush on 3 philosophers.  I'd like to challenge some of your base assumptions and presentations of the pragmatic theory of truth.  Of course, that's only if you are up for a discussion of substance and not one where you state some (odd) interpretation of Wittgenstein and dismiss any criticisms without taking the time to counter them.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 If you are actually interested in understanding what I think, which I can't imagine is the case, as you can see, I have a few posts here on this board about it all.

Again, don't run away from a challenge.  I have read your views.  I simply don't accept them.  

So, if I were to start a thread on say, theories of truth, would you be willing to engage in a substantive discussion?

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Keep in mind I'm not holding my breath, but it would have to be something substantial and conclusive such as an archeological find such as a Babylon myth narrative which included a character similar to Abraham showing a non Israelite origin, like the gilgamish flood narrative that the Israelites cooped into the Noah flood myth...

If today archaeologists were to dig up a road sign that said in reformed Egyptian "Zarahemla Next 5 Exits" how we know it?

[Ouagadougou]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It cannot be proven to NOT be history.

True.  But if you look at the current evidence we DO have, it suggests that it was a failed translation, IMO.  

Even the church admits that:

"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..."

 

[Ouagadougou]

18 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Shouldn't the question be worded, "Will the Church ever admit it's not true?"

Remember, the church doesn't give apologies or really admit that it made mistakes.  Case-in-point, just read the essay on blacks and the priesthood.  They call it all "theory," when in fact, it was 100% doctrine, IMO.  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

True.  But if you look at the current evidence we DO have, it suggests that it was a failed translation, IMO.  

Even the church admits that:

"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..."

 

Then ignore the word "translate".  Just because Joseph and his contemporaries used the word doesn't mean literal translation.
All that matters is the resulting scripture.  Worrying about whether it was a linguistic translation or a revelatory "translation" of impressions Joseph received seems to miss the point of the end result.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

Remember, the church doesn't give apologies or really admit that it made mistakes.  Case-in-point, just read the essay on blacks and the priesthood.  They call it all "theory," when in fact, it was 100% doctrine, IMO.  

All doctrine is theory unless it has been conclusively proven.
That's why we operate on faith.  Wanting to operate on conclusive proof and evidence is not part of God's design right now.

[Ouagadougou]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know where you obtained the polling data for "difficult for most people to accept," but your proposition is false to begin with.  The scholar writing that Gospel Topics Essay may not have made it clear to you that there is no legitimate claim that a text written by Abraham "ended up in a random funerary text."  That is an anti-Mormon claim certainly, but it just doesn't hold water, and that is not what the Essay says.  The true questions are:  Does the biblical text place Abraham at around 2,000 BC?  Yes.  Is it the official LDS claim that a story written by Abraham was translated from a physical papyrus?  Yes.  Take a look at the current title page, for example.  Do we know for certain that Jews regularly copied and recopied their holy texts over time?  Yes, for thousands of years they have done so.  Have they translated them into various languages?  Yes.  They have always done that.  Have the Jews incorporated non-Jewish symbols and language into their copying, translations, and synagogues?  Yes.  We have multi-volumed expositions of that fact.  Especially the massive 13-volume work of  Erwin Goodenough, 

Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that the currently available fragments do not contain the Book of Abraham, but that does not mean that they simultaneously "embrace it as scripture."  That is clearly illogical and contrary to fact, and you entirely miss the point.  I lay out the facts in short compass in my "Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham" at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  You might also want to review the comments of a Jewish Rabbi, whom I cite in my first footnote.  There is also the very recent lecture in Rome by Mormon Egyptologist John Gee, "The Book of Abraham in Historical Context," online at http://averroes2.blogspot.jp/2017/01/the-book-of-abraham-in-historical.html .

Interesting.  I looked at your sites you listed.  But I remind you that all the info from my original post came from the LDS.org website, so I don't see how that is "anti-Mormon."  Even the essay admits that, 

"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."

This would mean that it was a random funerary text, since there was nothing to indicate the papyrus were written by Abraham himself.   

Also, don't the vast majority of non-LDS Egyptologists agree that the Book of Abraham is a failed translation or a fraud?  

IMO, if the Book of Abraham was historical scripture, then both the Jewish and Muslim (remaining Christian) communities would be wanting to get their hands on this Book.  The thing is, most don't really care because they generally conclude that it is (at best) speculative writing.  

[Ouagadougou]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then ignore the word "translate".  Just because Joseph and his contemporaries used the word doesn't mean literal translation.
All that matters is the resulting scripture.  Worrying about whether it was a linguistic translation or a revelatory "translation" of impressions Joseph received seems to miss the point of the end result.

You should tell that to whomever wrote the essay.  Look at the title:

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

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

[Ouagadougou]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 By fomenting an undue focus on the how, the Adversary gets his victims to take their eyes off of a marvelous, miraculous what

I quoted the church's essay on the Book of Abraham which focuses on the "how," in many ways.  I guess you are arguing that the church is using its own essay to "focus on the how;" thus, allowing the adversary to get "his victims to take their eyes off of a marvelous miraculous what."  

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I quoted the church's essay on the Book of Abraham which focuses on the "how," in many ways.  I guess you are arguing that the church is using its own essay to "focus on the how;" thus, allowing the adversary to get "his victims to take their eyes off of a marvelous miraculous what."  

Not only that but the 'how' is not separable from the 'what'. We make choicesall the time on things we buy based on how and where they were made, like food, cars, clothes and precious gems. We often hear the scriptures compared to precious gems. Regardless of the quality of a gem,  it is important to know where it came from before buying it.

[Foreigner]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 Susskind, the "discoverer" of black holes says we may never understand reality.  http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

Here is a scholarly article about Rorty, whose views on this question I follow.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Sorry, but I think this question of "reality" and how we speak about it is not quite as simple as you think it is.

I have read all this. Here are some quotes about Rorty:

While his writing enjoys an unusual degree of popularity beyond the confines of the profession, Rorty's work is often regarded with suspicion and scepticism within academic philosophy.

An important reason for the high temperature of much of the debate that Rorty has inspired is that he appears to some to reject the very values that are the basis for any articulation of a philosophical view of truth and knowledge at all.

Add to that his admiration to Darwinian naturalism and you can get a glance of danger he caused for contemporary science.

I used to perceive mfbukowski philosophical comments as amusing. Yet finally it is time for conclusion: That all leads astray, as was with teachings of Rorty and many others.

Regarding Susskind: I know about physics what he does not know. What I can share here is this: Black holes do not help BoA issue at all.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Remember, the church doesn't give apologies or really admit that it made mistakes.  Case-in-point, just read the essay on blacks and the priesthood.  They call it all "theory," when in fact, it was 100% doctrine, IMO.  

Not a word about "theory".

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

True.  But if you look at the current evidence we DO have, it suggests that it was a failed translation, IMO.  

Even the church admits that:

"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..."

 

What the Church admits. as well as all LDS scholars that I know of, is that the Book of Abraham did not come from any of the papyrus fragments that are currently in its possession. 

[Gray]

Very little in the scriptures is historically accurate. But scripture is not history, never has been.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Yeah.... I never said my example was metaphysics.  I was using observable physics and chemistry to demonstrate how absurd your metaphysical assertions are.  It's not a "useful paradigm", it is an easily demonstrable fact.

If you don't understand the difference I'm not sure we will be able to have a constructive conversation.

I'm sorry.  Did you want me to get into the details of electrons, up and down quarks along with other quantum particles?

I'm curious why you put "electromagnetic force" in scare quotes.  Do you reject the phenomenon's existence and what we have been able to demonstrate about how if functions?

And as you know, when making a simple point, simple examples are appropriate.

Pro-tip: when trying to argue about what is real or not, citing String Theory may not be the best example to bolster your argument. Pretty math, no evidence (yet). Maybe string theory is correct but for now I'm going to stick with actual science that produces theories, develops experiements, and then confirms those theories through observation.  M-theory -- and other variants -- are still on step one.

And again, I'm making a simple point: your assertions about "history that remote is what you think it is" are not only absurd, they deny the historical reality of the Gospel.  History isn't what we think it is.  History is what actually happened.  But hey, if you want to think a belief in Leprechaun invasion of Ireland in 1093 AD where they arrived on the Titanic and rode in on unicorns slaughtering thousands with their swords made of cheese, go for it.  But don't try and pass it off as history.

Have you read anyone other than Rorty, James, and Wittgenstein? If you would be so kind, I'm curious to know who you think Rorty's most formidable critics are and why.  Double points for doing this without googling.  The philosophy of language and the pragmatic theory of truth are interesting.  But there's a big world out there.  I think you would like it.

I know.  You state this in almost every post. 

Let's go down the rabbit hole!  I'd love to discuss this in great depth with you.

I understand the issues you present, I can assure you.

But don't run away because you are being challenged.

Yes, I know.  Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on this board knows this as well.  You have a philosophical crush on 3 philosophers.  I'd like to challenge some of your base assumptions and presentations of the pragmatic theory of truth.  Of course, that's only if you are up for a discussion of substance and not one where you state some (odd) interpretation of Wittgenstein and dismiss any criticisms without taking the time to counter them.

Again, don't run away from a challenge.  I have read your views.  I simply don't accept them.  

So, if I were to start a thread on say, theories of truth, would you be willing to engage in a substantive discussion?

I'd be interested to follow along in a discussion like that, but the emotional chest thumping stuff ("don't run away") doesn't help get the conversation off on the right foot. Just sayin!

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not a word about "theory".

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. "

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It wasn't a "theory," it was doctrine IMO. 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

What the Church admits. as well as all LDS scholars that I know of, is that the Book of Abraham did not come from any of the papyrus fragments that are currently in its possession. 

True.  And will we ever find any other fragments in the future?  Probably not...who knows?  But the fact that the Book of Abraham doesn't match the papyrus is damning to the church's claim that this is historical scripture from Abraham himself.  What we do have in our possession shows that Joseph Smith's attempted translation was incorrect.  

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. "

 

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. "

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It wasn't a "theory," it was doctrine IMO. 

It has never been doctrine either. There have been members of color since 1830.

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It has never been doctrine either. There have been members of color since 1830.

What's disheartening is that you believe the church was open and accepting of blacks from 1830 to 1978.  Ignorance is bliss.  I could provide numerous quotes from prophets that illustrate it was doctrine in their minds.  But I guess they were all talking as men and not prophets.  

[Foreigner]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

Very little in the scriptures is historically accurate. But scripture is not history, never has been.

???

What religion, please?

As far as I know LDS scriptures, they are all essentially historical. Sometimes it is difficult to prove their historicity.

[CA Steve]

Is there any evidence that the portions of the scrolls we are missing are anything but more Egyptian burial documents?

[why me]

I think that when we look at the book of abraham, we need to look at the bigger picture: the lds church. When we consider the book of mormon, the doctrine and covenants and the main players such as the witnesses, we see a rather complex church. And a very young man in charge of it. If I put myself in joseph's shoes, and if I knew that it was all a con, I probably would not stick my neck out and make a false translation of ancient script. And then keep them for posterity. Too much of a risk. Why bother with doing such a text? To cement his prophethood among the members? I don't think so.

Amazing experiences were happening around Joseph. And when it comes to the book of abraham, to my knowledge, Joseph did not make the book scripture. It was made scripture after his death. But when we put the book of abraham with the book of mormon, his revelations, and with his putting together a wonderful church that was very revolutionary for his time and age, it was quite an accomplishment. The work of one man or the work of god is the question.

[why me]

52 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. "

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It wasn't a "theory," it was doctrine IMO. 

Not sure about that when one looks at the debate that was surrounding it by the various leadership over the years. There is no revelation on it. It just seemed to come from nowhere. Joseph had no problem with blacks being in the priesthood.

http://www.mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-026-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood-an-interview-with-darius-gray-and-margaret-young/

Edited January 22, 2017 by why me

[why me]

33 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

???

What religion, please?

As far as I know LDS scriptures, they are all essentially historical. Sometimes it is difficult to prove their historicity.

And it will always will be. I don't think that there will ever be evidence that god exists and that the church is absolutely true based on evidence that has nothing to do with spiritual experience.