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

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I didn't refer him as Prof. I didn't even know anyone that epoch was called Prof. 

Martin Luther received his Doktor Theologiae degree on Oct 19, 1512, and he joined the faculty of theology at Wittenberg University that same month as a Theologieprofessor. That is why he was called a professor, although the Germans today tend to use the title "Herr Professor Doktor."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

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

............................. But remember, early Christians did not have the same notions about human preexistence that modern Mormons have. 

See Hugh Nibley, chapter 6, OT and Related Studies, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley I (FARMS/ Deseret Book , 1986), online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1101&index=9 . 

While it is true that the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 553 AD) declared Origen's thought on human pre-existence anathema, early Christianity certainly taught the pre-mortal existence of souls, and this was a legacy of both the Old and New Testaments:

Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7, “Remember your creator in the days of your youth … before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, or the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground from which it came, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”

John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 8: 58, “Before Abraham was, I am.”

John 16:28, “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

John 17:18, “As you sent me into the world, I sent them into the world.”

II Corianthians 5:1, “Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling.”

Ephesians 1:4, “He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.”

Philemon 2:7,‘He made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Look - you are the one making a claim that JS "explanations for those three illustrations is right on target" - yet when I suggest you have your claims scrutinized by peers you back away that it would be silly?  I think we all remember when Holland said, "the vehicle for that, I do not understand, and don't claim to know, and know no egyptian".  What's wrong with Ritner's JNES 62/3 (2003): 161–77?  Please lay out the problems, the rationale for why such an effort is "silly".....................................

No one actually familiar with the field of ancient Near Eastern studies would entertain such a possibility.  It is simply childish to imagine that it will happen any time soon.  In my opinion, the far more effective route is to take the standard peer-reviewed Ancient Near Eastern studies literature and mine it for comments on exactly the issues constantly raised by inquirers.  There is, after all, nothing at all new in the Joseph Smith Papyri.  Egyptologists have been commenting on such material for many years.  In fact, we are better off scanning the literature for unbiased scholarship on such matters, rather than poking the hornets nest of direct confrontation -- instead we need the "gentile respectability" that Hugh Nibley so often spoke of, and which prevents the poisoning of the wells which goes on regularly in the confrontational approach.  Or don't you see the problem?  I like Ritner's scholarship, own some of his writings, and attended a lecture by him at UCLA.  I cite him regularly.  But, let's face it, he hates Mormons and can be quite contemptuous and vituperative.

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

  If we had the plates today and copied a few plates verbatim and sent them to scholars - what would they say?  "Ah this looks similar to meroitic - let me run this through an AI deep learning heuristic to detect language patterns but I need more characters."  or would they say "uh - looks like random occultic runes - don't have any idea what this says".

Of course you are unaware that standard non-Mormon Egyptologists such as Richard A. Parker and W. C. Hays looked at the so-called Anthon Transcript many years ago and considered it authentic Egyptian text.

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Yes - I picked up a copy after reading Cook's Dialogue paper. However, what I am interested in specifically are the texts available to JS in early 19th century.  

Yes, I understood that quite well, and congratulated you on it.  Not sure you get where I'm coming from.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 One needn't necessarily be a devotee of Rorty, or of Kant, or of anyone of that ilk (or of anyone who is of a more philosophical bent generally) to realize that one sees truth, less as it is, and, rather, more as he (the observer) is.  Try as he might to escape it or to minimize it, no one is immune from that phenomenon, whether he seeks truth through a philosophical paradigm, or through an artistic one, or through a legal one, or even through a scientific one.  What one sees has much to do with one's perspective, with the lens(es) he chooses to use, with the data available to him and how he interprets it, and so on. Yet many on this Board who are most of an empirical bent like to delude themselves into thinking that, somehow, indeed, they are immune from that phenomenon.  Alas, simply saying it (or assuming it, and ya'll know what assuming does ) doesn't make it so.  

Agree fully.  Most don't even understand the problem that they wear permanently implanted "sunglasses" of the human ability to perceive and all of reality AS WE KNOW IT is defined not by "what is" but by what our minds can make of it.  I long to see a scene illuminated by cosmic rays instead of visible light frequencies, but it ain't gonna happen at least in this life.

Many worship at the altar of "evidence" without even understanding that evidence is what we make of it

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your comment on philosophers seemed a bit opaque to me, perhaps misunderstanding them and giving them (collectively) a bad rap.  So I primed the pump by actually quoting some philosophers, but you didn't bite, and I am still wondering what you really mean.  And now you add the odd notion that philosophers don't keep a straight line, which sounds like a riddle, or a koan.  Help me out here, Foreigner.

He sho nuff ain't talkin about Pythagoras!  He was all about straight lines!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Foreigner said:

"seek learning even by study and also by faith"

Do you know the difference between "learning" and "truth"?  

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, blueglass said:

Look - you are the one making a claim that JS "explanations for those three illustrations is right on target" - yet when I suggest you have your claims scrutinized by peers you back away that it would be silly?  I think we all remember when Holland said, "the vehicle for that, I do not understand, and don't claim to know, and know no egyptian".  What's wrong with Ritner's JNES 62/3 (2003): 161–77?  Please lay out the problems, the rationale for why such an effort is "silly".  Why have Gee, Rhodes, and Muhlestein struggled to get their work on the JS Papyri published in JNES?  I think there is a strong correlation to the early work by Martin Harris to get caractors copied off the plates to scholars like Samuel Mitchell, Samuel Rafinesque, Caleb Atwater to verify that they were of ancient origin before investing in the project.  If we had the plates today and copied a few plates verbatim and sent them to scholars - what would they say?  "Ah this looks similar to meroitic - let me run this through an AI deep learning heuristic to detect language patterns but I need more characters."  or would they say "uh - looks like random occultic runes - don't have any idea what this says".  

Yes - I picked up a copy after reading Cook's Dialogue paper. However, what I am interested in specifically are the texts available to JS in early 19th century.  

You DO understand that we do not believe any of these are literal translations, right?  That the church admits it and most agree that the manuscripts were used as religious objects to receive revelation NOT contained in the literal message?  That Joseph "translated" the Book of Mormon by staring at a stone with in a hat pulled over his face??

Quote

We do know some things about the translation process. The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language. He readily acknowledged that he was one of the “weak things of the world,” called to speak words sent “from heaven.”1 Speaking of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Lord said, “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”2 The same principle can be applied to the book of Abraham. 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.

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

Edited February 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

See Hugh Nibley, chapter 6, OT and Related Studies, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley I (FARMS/ Deseret Book , 1986), online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1101&index=9 . 

While it is true that the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 553 AD) declared Origen's thought on human pre-existence anathema, early Christianity certainly taught the pre-mortal existence of souls, and this was a legacy of both the Old and New Testaments:

Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7, “Remember your creator in the days of your youth … before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, or the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground from which it came, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”

John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 8: 58, “Before Abraham was, I am.”

John 16:28, “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

John 17:18, “As you sent me into the world, I sent them into the world.”

II Corianthians 5:1, “Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling.”

Ephesians 1:4, “He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.”

Philemon 2:7,‘He made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
 

 

Well, we know how Mormons interpret these verses, theologically and doctrinally. Is there any reason to think first century Christians believed in the preexistence of human souls? Of course the belief that Jesus existed before his birth begins with Paul (who perhaps believed that Jesus was an angel before his birth, was born as a human, and then after death "promoted" to be the Messiah and vindicated at the right hand of God). Paul of course believed in predestination, but that's not the same thing as preexistence. And of course John has an even higher view of Jesus and his preexistence, but again that doesn't say anything about our preexistence. I can see what you're doing with John 17:18, but that strikes me as a reinterpretation through a Mormon lens and Mormon assumptions. In other words, a theologically-driven interpretation.  Jesus sent the apostles out into the world to preach the gospel. 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Gray

[Foreigner]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your comment on philosophers seemed a bit opaque to me, perhaps misunderstanding them and giving them (collectively) a bad rap.  So I primed the pump by actually quoting some philosophers, but you didn't bite, and I am still wondering what you really mean.  And now you add the odd notion that philosophers don't keep a straight line, which sounds like a riddle, or a koan.  Help me out here, Foreigner.

I am trying. Now by dialogue.

- What Satan did in Eden?

- He came with a gift for people.

- Has it a name?

- It has. Philosophy.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

Well, we know how Mormons interpret these verses, theologically and doctrinally. Is there any reason to think first century Christians believed in the preexistence of human souls? Of course the belief that Jesus existed before his birth begins with Paul (who perhaps believed that Jesus was an angel before his birth, was born as a human, and then after death "promoted" to be the Messiah and vindicated at the right hand of God). Paul of course believed in predestination, but that's not the same thing as preexistence. And of course John has an even higher view of Jesus and his preexistence, but again that doesn't say anything about our preexistence. I can see what you're doing with John 17:18, but that strikes me as a reinterpretation through a Mormon lens and Mormon assumptions. In other words, a theologically-driven interpretation.  Jesus sent the apostles out into the world to preach the gospel. 

There are certainly scholars (especially Jewish scholars) who believe that Saint Paul invented Christianity, and you are free to adopt that view.  I don't agree at all.  That is, as you suggest, a theologically-driven claim -- one in which you yourself participate.

The only Mormon source I cited was Hugh Nibley, and he utilized a mass of early Judeo-Christian sources in making his case, not referring to any Mormon sources.  The other sources I consulted were exclusively non-Mormon, none seeing the issue through a Mormon lens at all.  Why?  Because they didn't need to.  The doctrine of pre-existence was already there and dominant.  Indeed, all of the biblical citations I quoted were provided by non-Mormon sites arguing on behalf of pre-existence.  You are laboring under the false notion that only Mormons accept pre-mortal existence.

Here is a summary of Origen's extraordinary views on pre-existent souls:

Quote

According to Origen, God's first creation was a collectivity of rational beings which he calls logika. "Although Origen speaks of the logika as being created, they were not created in time. Creation with respect to them means that they had a beginning, but not a temporal one" (Tripolitis 1978, p. 94). Further, Origen explains that the number of these rational beings is necessarily limited, since an infinite creation would be incomprehensible, and unworthy of God. These souls were originally created in close proximity to God, with the intention that they should explore the divine mysteries in a state of endless contemplation. They grew weary of this intense contemplation, however, and lapsed, falling away from God and into an existence on their own terms, apart from the divine presence and the wisdom to be found there. This fall was not, it must be understood, the result of any inherent imperfection in the creatures of God, rather, it was the result of a misuse of the greatest gift of God to His creation: freedom. The only rational creature who escaped the fall and remained with God is the "soul of Christ" (Origen, On First Principles 2.6.5; Tripolitis 1978, p. 96). This individual soul is indicative of the intended function of all souls, i.e., to reveal the divine mystery in unique ways, insofar as the meaning of this mystery is deposited within them, as theandric (God-human) potentiality, to be drawn out and revealed through co-operation with God (On First Principles 2.9.2-8). As Origen explains, the soul of Christ was no different from that of any of the souls that fell away from God, for Christ's soul possessed the same potential for communion with God as that of all other souls. What distinguished the soul of Christ from all others - and what preserved Him from falling away - was His supreme act of free choice, to remain immersed in the divinity.

What are now souls (psukhê) began as minds, and through boredom or distraction grew "cold" (psukhesthai) as they moved away from the "divine warmth" (On First Principles 2.8.3). Thus departing from God, they came to be clothed in bodies, at first of "a fine ethereal and invisible nature," but later, as souls fell further away from God, their bodies changed "from a fine, ethereal and invisible body to a body of a coarser and more solid state. The purity and subtleness of the body with which a soul is enveloped depends upon the moral development and perfection of the soul to which it is joined. Origen states that there are varying degrees of subtleness even among the celestial and spiritual bodies" (Tripolitis 1978, p. 106). When a soul achieves salvation, according to Origen, it ceases being a soul, and returns to a state of pure "mind" or understanding. However, due to the fall, now "no rational spirit can ever exist without a body" (Tripolitis 1978, p. 114), but the bodies of redeemed souls are "spiritual bodies," made of the purest fire (see A. Scott 1991, Chapter 9).  http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/#SH3b (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

See also https://www.christianforums.com/threads/origen-and-the-early-doctrine-of-pre-mortal-existence-of-souls.7471123/  

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268858?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are certainly scholars (especially Jewish scholars) who believe that Saint Paul invented Christianity, and you are free to adopt that view.  I don't agree at all.  That is, as you suggest, a theologically-driven claim -- one in which you yourself participate.

The only Mormon source I cited was Hugh Nibley, and he utilized a mass of early Judeo-Christian sources in making his case, not referring to any Mormon sources.  The other sources I consulted were exclusively non-Mormon, none seeing the issue through a Mormon lens at all.  Why?  Because they didn't need to.  The doctrine of pre-existence was already there and dominant.  Indeed, all of the biblical citations I quoted were provided by non-Mormon sites arguing on behalf of pre-existence.  You are laboring under the false notion that only Mormons accept pre-mortal existence.

Here is a summary of Origen's extraordinary views on pre-existent souls:

See also https://www.christianforums.com/threads/origen-and-the-early-doctrine-of-pre-mortal-existence-of-souls.7471123/  

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268858?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 

 

 

My argument is not theologically motivated at all. I have no dog in the race, and I have nothing against the idea of a human preexistence, but I'm not convinced the idea had currency among first century Christians.

You seem to be interpreting those passages through a Mormon lens, with Mormon assumptions. Nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't get at what first century Christians believed. And of course Origen wasn't a first century Christian either. 

Obviously Paul alone didn't invent Christianity, although he seems to have played a major hand in shaping its trajectory. 

Cards on the table - I'm not terribly interested in Nibley's interpretations, which again seem to be extremely theologically driven rather than derived from a critical approach. I'd be more interested in the views of major New Testament scholars, most especially someone active in the last 15 years. I'd be curious to know if there is any evidence (from a critical perspective) of first century notions of the preexistence of the human soul. I'm not aware of that there were any, but that means nothing. 

In any case, my point to JLHPROF was about avoiding presentism - reading Mormon theology back into the first century. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Gray

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Cards on the table - I'm not terribly interested in Nibley's interpretations, which again seem to be extremely theologically driven rather than derived from a critical approach. I'd be more interested in the views of major New Testament scholars, most especially someone active in the last 15 years.

Aren't you just trading one scholar's opinions (Nibley) for others' that you are more open and sympathetic to ("major New Testament scholars, most especially someone active in the last 15 years")? All based on personal preference and orientation?

Is there really an objective difference, outside of personal preference and orientation?

[Gray]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Aren't you just trading one scholar's opinions (Nibley) for others' that you are more open and sympathetic to ("major New Testament scholars, most especially someone active in the last 15 years")? All based on personal preference and orientation?

Is there really an objective difference, outside of personal preference and orientation?

All of us have presuppositions, of course. Mine is that higher criticism is the best tool we have to answer questions like these. If you want to know what happened in history, use the best tools available to accomplish that purpose - in this case, good critical scholarship. In this way we can at least minimize biases and presentist theological distortions. 

My bias for recent scholarship is based on the notion that our understanding isn't static, and what we think we know is constantly evolving as the field advances. 

These two criteria (critical scholarship that is up to date) are especially important to me, as a layperson, because my ability to independently verify all of this kind of information just isn't there. 

Questions about meaning can be answered using other tools, like theology. 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

On 2/8/2017 at 9:07 AM, Gray said:

Well, we know how Mormons interpret these verses, theologically and doctrinally. Is there any reason to think first century Christians believed in the preexistence of human souls? Of course the belief that Jesus existed before his birth begins with Paul (who perhaps believed that Jesus was an angel before his birth, was born as a human, and then after death "promoted" to be the Messiah and vindicated at the right hand of God). Paul of course believed in predestination, but that's not the same thing as preexistence. And of course John has an even higher view of Jesus and his preexistence, but again that doesn't say anything about our preexistence. I can see what you're doing with John 17:18, but that strikes me as a reinterpretation through a Mormon lens and Mormon assumptions. In other words, a theologically-driven interpretation.  Jesus sent the apostles out into the world to preach the gospel. 

This is a great comment Gray.  As a Mormon I didn't learn the differences between these concepts, and looked at everything through a Mormon lens.  I'm trying to get up to speed now on these doctrines that have been espoused throughout history.  Charlie Harrell's book on the development of Mormon Doctrine has helped a lot with respect to some of these distinctions that you mention.  I still get them confused, but I'm getting better the more I study.  

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a great comment Gray.  As a Mormon I didn't learn the differences between these concepts, and looked at everything through a Mormon lens.  I'm trying to get up to speed now on these doctrines that have been espoused throughout history.  Charlie Harrell's book on the development of Mormon Doctrine has helped a lot with respect to some of these distinctions that you mention.  I still get them confused, but I'm getting better the more I study.  

I'm really interested in the development of Christian theology. I'm no expert, but it's fascinating to learn how it developed. It's really not what you would think. You miss a lot of it too, as a lay person reading the Bible, because you're reading it with so many theological and doctrinal presuppositions. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm really interested in the development of Christian theology. I'm no expert, but it's fascinating to learn how it developed. It's really not what you would think. You miss a lot of it too, as a lay person reading the Bible, because you're reading it with so many theological and doctrinal presuppositions. 

Agreed, I have a study bible and I've read some Ehrman and Borg, and find these ideas of the evolution of early Christianity very interesting.  I also find that a lot of the history around the evolution of ideas, the discarding of earlier orthodoxy, the definitions of what is heresy and what isn't, all these things have modern parallels happening today, so there is a practical purpose in learning from the past for me as well.