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

[Foreigner]

On 21.01.2017 at 6:46 PM, Ouagadougou said:

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

It has already happened. Compare:new edition of scriptures

Page 87, in introduction to PGP one sentence was changed significantly into two ones. Instead of unconditional translation from Egyptian papyri, now there is inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. With no explicit statement that they were inside the papyri...

[Foreigner]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To abandon The Book of Abraham would be to give up a rich reservoir of distinctly Mormon doctrine.

I can see Mormon doctrine without BoA virtually intact.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The main problem you have here is that Abraham was not an Israelite.  Indeed, the biblical stories place him in an era a thousand years before the Israelites appear in Canaan.  In fact, the Israelite tribes are listed in the Bible as only one set of his descendants -- which also include the Arabs, who call him Ibrahim.  As to ancient  sources mentioning such a name, we do have several:  

Ancient Eblaite Abramu, Mari Abram, Amorite A-bi-ra-am,^[1] Akkadian Abam-rama “Father is beloved”(an Ugaritic name in Akkadian transcription),[2] Ugaritic Abrm/Ibrm/A-bi-ra-mu,^[3] and Neo-Assyrian Abi-ra-mu,^[4] all reflecting Hebrew ʼAbrām (Genesis 11:26-31) and ʼAbrāhām^[5] (Genesis 17:5-36), which both mean “Father is exalted,”^[6] from ʼab “father,” and the Semitic root √RWM or √RYM “be exalted,”^[7] which is virtually the same as Hebrew ʼĀbîrām “(My) Father is exalted” (Numbers 16:1).  This reminds James Hoch of *ʼAbu-ram, a name from the Egyptian Execration Texts (Egyptian ʼAbu-l-m).^[8]

 

---

^[1] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing AS 21:554:125 OB.

 

[2] J. J. Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939), 292.

 

^[3] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing PTU 182; Frauke Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Studia Pohl 1 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 86; G. del Olmo Lete & J. Sanmartin, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 2^nd ed., 12.

 

^[4] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing WSB 279.

 

^[5] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosography, §11111 (p. 24), citing Rothstein/Hänel, 156; cf. IPN 242:466; Albright, JBL, 54 (1935):193ff.; BASOR, 83 (1941):34; 88 (1942):36; Cassuto, EB(c) 1, cols. 62-63.

 

^[6] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24); Thomas Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 22-36, cited in Scott Layton, Archaic Features, 22-23.  LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 600-601, Abram “exalted father,” and Abraham “Father of a multitude,” the latter a false folk etymology based on Hebrew hămōn “multitude,” P. Joüon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2^nd ed., with corr. (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011), §98b.

 

^[7] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing IPN 145-146; WSB 84.

 

^[8] Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 495, E47 (comparing Amorite Ḫa-mu-ra-ma).

The problem is that we have several distinct Mesopotamian Flood Stories of which you are unaware, aside from such stories worldwide.  Thus missing the likelihood that a worldwide phenomenon would be recalled in a variety of cultures worldwide, each in their own way.  I lay out and analyze three of the Mesopotamian Flood Stories in J. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity, pp. 28-31, including the Sumerian, and two Akkadian Flood Stories.  Indeed, for you to adequately understand the original components of the biblical Flood Story, you need to at least read David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, volume 1.

Robert, I never claimed Abraham was Israelite, but a post Babylon ad hoc adoption by Israel to add gravitas to their collective societal narrative.  I would recommend you read "Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel" by Paula McNutt.  In her book, McNutt makes a compelling case for a non-historical Abraham myth that was cooped by Israel in the 6th century BCE.  Currently we have nothing that would support an Abrahamic figure having ever existed in real space and time, your beliefs not withstanding.  

[why me]

35 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

I can see Mormon doctrine without BoA virtually intact.

Not quite. The critics would claim victory and cement their attack on mormonism. It would be a huge retreat for the lds church and it would be felt among the membership. The critics would come out in full force, desparaging the lds church, impacting members testimonies if the lds church gave up on the book.

[mfbukowski]

5 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?

Of course

Good luck.

Start with this one- just refute it and that would be a good start. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

And pragmatism is not really a theory of truth.  It is a theory about why truth doesn't work as a concept.  It is a substitute for "truth"- what works in a given situation. I will go with Rorty on that one.

Once again- sorry folks.   I mean how many times have you had a lesson on being a member missionary at church?  Pretend this Rorty video is that lesson.  

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And as far as critics of Rorty, I am one myself.

It's just that people here need to learn his central way of seeing so they can refine it for the LDS faith.

Rorty is an atheist- I am not

[Glenn101]

38 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

 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. "

 

The comment in bold is not an accurate statement. The second one is. I am sure that you have done the research and know that there were a lot more papyri than the ones currently in the possession of the Church. To make your statement accurate, you would have to prove that what we now have is what Joseph used to translate the Book of Abraham. Can you do that?

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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

If one reads the extant descriptions by some of the eyewitnesses, I would say yes. I do not know that a Egyptian funerary document would have a picture of a serpent with legs and tail forming a tripod with head in Eve's ear, as described by Charlotte Haven.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours 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..."

 

A "failed translation"?  Of course it was- so what?  If the church admits it then that is not a very good critical argument against the church is it, if the church agrees with it.  That makes it no criticism at all.

That is the traditional old critical argument against the Book of Abraham that has been re-hashed for years.

That is like blaming the Bible for saying the earth is 6,000 years old as being "failed science"

I will acknowledge that one all day long- that is not the issue.  It is old news.

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

 

If one reads the extant descriptions by some of the eyewitnesses, I would say yes. I do not know that a Egyptian funerary document would have a picture of a serpent with legs and tail forming a tripod with head in Eve's ear, as described by Charlotte Haven.

 

See here. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/egyptian-papyri/9?highlight=papyri

[Calm]

The tripod is where?

I agree it could be a screwed up memory, so that is a possibility...but the tripod comment is rather striking, unusual; so I lean towards it being another picture that struck Haven's eye because the three 'limbs ' formed a tripod.

If you have Pinterest, you can see a picture of a two legged snake with a tail that drops, so there appears to be variations that would fit the description better.

edit:  here is a "tripod" variation with wings.  I am not saying this proves what Haven saw, just showing what is to me the more likely appearance of the legs and tail in a description that uses "tripod" as one of the defining features.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Calm

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The tripod is where?

I agree it could be a screwed up memory, so that is a possibility...but the tripod comment is rather striking, unusual so I lean towards it being another picture that struck Haven's eye because the three 'limbs ' formed a tripod.

I do not believe that it was a screwed up memory. The meeting was detailed by Charlotte Haven in a letter to her mother while Charlotte was visiting Nauvoo in January of 1843. The letter would have been only a few days removed from her visit with Lucy Mack Smith. Charlotte described the vignette: "One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who -- the serpent, I mean -- was standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear."

I actually found a picture of such on the internet in 2013 and posted it on a Book of Abraham thread on June 17 of that year, but I suffered a hard drive crash sometime afterwards and do not have it in my archives. I also cannot locate the post itself for some reason, although Google says that I did. And I have been unable to find it again on the internet. Must have been deleted by anti-Mormons. 

46 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

See here. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/egyptian-papyri/9?highlight=papyri

I am well aware of that picture. Thanks.

 

Glenn

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

The tripod is where?

I agree it could be a screwed up memory, so that is a possibility...but the tripod comment is rather striking, unusual so I lean towards it being another picture that struck Haven's eye because the three 'limbs ' formed a tripod.

If you have Pinterest, you can see a picture of a two legged snake with a tail that drops, so there appears to be variations that would fit the description better.

Well, given that the are some who claim we are missing a lot more of the papyri than we currently have, the fact that there is only a single disputed description which may or may not be interpreted as from a missing portion, is not evidence, in my mind that those portions we are missing are anything other than more Egyptian documents. And in fact if the only examples that are given of missing papyri are more references to what might be seen on Egyptian documents , I do not see how that helps.

 

The Haven account is used as evidence to show we are missing documents. All of that is based on her use of the term "long".. I find it a bit ironic that a description she gave of the tripod snake and Eve, which seems to fit a portion of what we have, except for the fact that the tail does not rest on the ground, is grounds for concluding she was talking about some thing else, while at the same time assuming that 'long' meant more than a comparison between the two scrolls of unknown length shown to her in a small room in an attic. So somehow we know exactly what she meant by tripod (or whomever she was quoting) and long.

I believe the Hevan snake and Eve reference applies to the link I provided, but even if it doesn't it is not much help in demonstrating that the missing papyri contains anything other than Egyptian funerary documents.

 

[Calm]

The tail is more than not resting on the ground, it is pointing up, iirc, in the opposite direction claimed.

Does not the Haven account also give details of the scroll extending through one or two rooms?  If so (I may have confused it with another), that also is more than just defining "long" as longer than others define it.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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."

You apparently did not carefully read my comment saying " 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," and apparently you did not read my "Brief Assessment."  Both statements are based on standard Egyptology and basic fact.  The Essay does not claim that the Book of Abraham comes from or was translated from fragments of random funerary texts.  That is your false claim.  In discussing the date and nature of the papyrus fragments now available (much has been lost), the scholar writing the Essay is not saying that they are the source of the Book of Abraham, and you cannot find a quotation from him saying that.  So you substitute false statements and conclusions instead.

Quote

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

Papyrus is singular.  Papyri is plural.  Had you read my study or the Essay carefully, you would know that no one is claiming that the any of the currently available papyri were written by Abraham himself.  That has always been a false claim by the same people who think that we have the original letters of Saint Paul just because his letters sometimes end with the statement "with mine own hand" (II Thess 3:17).  We have only copies of his letters, and this is true of the Genesis accounts of the life of Abraham, which likewise come from copies made through thousands of years.  We have no originals of those texts at all.  We do not possess the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, although we do have good evidence of the late date and sources of the three illustrations used to accompany the Book of Abraham.  Thus, we can reasonably conclude that any such papyrus containing the Book of Abraham (possibly an addition to the Sensen text itself, perhaps under the glued backing) would be a copy made by members of the huge Jewish community in Egypt of much earlier texts.  That was normal for them, and we have other such texts passed down by them.

Quote

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

The majority of non-Mormon Egyptologists have never commented upon the nature of the Book of Abraham, and are not likely to bother with it.    Most of those who have written about it in recent decades have been respectful and analytic about the Joseph Smith Papyri (Parker, Baer, Wilson), although a more recent expert has been particularly nasty (Ritner).  For the Book of Abraham to be a failed translation, one would need a source to compare it with, and we don't have one -- except for the three illustrations, and Joseph's explanations were so frequently right on target there that it does not actually look like fraud at all.

Quote

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.  

Both Jews and Muslims have closed canons of Scripture and are not likely to allow additions (not sure what you mean by "remaining Christian," but they also have a closed canon).  I cited the analysis of a Jewish rabbi, and you might want to ask yourself about the many striking parallels he discovered in Jewish tradition.  You say that "most don't really care," once again engaging in wild speculation, even though most have never even heard of the subject.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours 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. 

Yes, there have been a number of people who mistakenly considered it doctrine, including the late Bruce R. McConkie -- who publicly admitted that he had been wrong. President David O. McKay had people diligently search for any justification of the prohibition of priesthood for Africans.  None could be found.  No revelation at all on the subject.  McKay concluded that it was merely a practice or policy -- clearly adopted in the administration of Brigham Young (despite the objection of Apostle Orson Pratt), even though Black men were ordained in Joseph Smith's time, and Joseph Smith himself considered slavery fundamentally wrong and sought to end it.  The Essay correctly terms the notions used to justify the inequality of Black people as "theories," because that is all they were -- whether used by badly informed Mormons or Southern Baptists.  A doctrine requires a revelatory or scriptural base, and there is none in this case.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Robert, I never claimed Abraham was Israelite, but a post Babylon ad hoc adoption by Israel to add gravitas to their collective societal narrative.  I would recommend you read "Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel" by Paula McNutt.  In her book, McNutt makes a compelling case for a non-historical Abraham myth that was cooped by Israel in the 6th century BCE.

Thanks for calling McNutt's book to my attention.  I am well aware of the position taken by minimalist scholars, suggesting that everything was co-opted by Jews in Babylon during the Exile.

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 Currently we have nothing that would support an Abrahamic figure having ever existed in real space and time, your beliefs not withstanding.  

I said nothing about my personal beliefs, and am only discussing scholarship herewith.  As in my own studies of these issues, I always cite my sources.  One of my reasons for going over the commonality of the name Abraham in the Middle Bronze Age (where he is described biblically), was to demonstrate that the name fits the era. That does not prove he existed, but then we cannot even prove that Moses existed (although there as well, his name is quite common in Egypt).  Aside from all that, there has been some very heavy scholarship supporting the notion of the Bible being very archaic and not simply the product of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews:  

Quote

The patriarchal traditions were an integral element in Israel’s early epic (although it must be said that the history of the patriarchs has been vastly expanded by later accretions before achieving its present agglutinative mass).  Much of the patriarchal lore is very old, some of it reaching back, perhaps, into the Middle Bronze Age.  As an epic cycle it evidently existed prior to the epic materials recounting exodus, covenant, and conquest.  There is, on the other hand, no reason to believe that the bundle of exodus, Sinai, and conquest themes ever existed detached from or separated from patriarchal epic tradition – save in its purely mythic prototype.
                        Frank Moore Cross, Jr., From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998), 47.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

I don't want to fully derail this thread, but as people are already discussing whether the BoA text comes from the book of breathings or some other source, here are some data points worth considering. 

Brian Hauglid, one of the scholars who contributed to the BoA Gospel topics essay, readily acknowledges that the Book of Abraham manuscripts, written in the hands of JS's scribes, contain characters from the Book of Breathings papyrus from directly next to facsimile 1 in the same order as they appear on the papyrus. He acknowledges that this makes it clear that JS and company believed that the Book of Abraham was a translation of the portion of the Book of Breathings indicated in the BoA manuscripts' margin. He also acknowledges that apologists don't like to talk about this bit very much. I heard him discussing the above in a podcast with Bill Reel: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/01/brian-hauglid-the-book-of-abraham/

On top of this we also have JS's blatantly incorrect translation of the hieratic in facsimile 3. Also, the woodcutting of facsimile 3 has Hor's name visible, which makes it likely to have been originally a part of the Book of Breathings scroll. 

The evidence points to JS' belief that when he was dictating the BoA, he was translating the characters next to facsimile 1, which we now know is the Book of Breathings. We can argue all day about a missing scroll if we'd like, but the manuscript evidence compels us to acknowledge the likelihood that JS thought he was translating something that we have now identified to not be the BoA or related to Abraham.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I don't want to fully derail this thread, but as people are already discussing whether the BoA text comes from the book of breathings or some other source, here are some data points worth considering. 

Brian Hauglid, one of the scholars who contributed to the BoA Gospel topics essay, readily acknowledges that the Book of Abraham manuscripts, written in the hands of JS's scribes, contain characters from the Book of Breathings papyrus from directly next to facsimile 1 in the same order as they appear on the papyrus. He acknowledges that this makes it clear that JS and company believed that the Book of Abraham was a translation of the portion of the Book of Breathings indicated in the BoA manuscripts' margin. He also acknowledges that apologists don't like to talk about this bit very much. I heard him discussing the above in a podcast with Bill Reel: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/01/brian-hauglid-the-book-of-abraham/

On top of this we also have JS's blatantly incorrect translation of the hieratic in facsimile 3. Also, the woodcutting of facsimile 3 has Hor's name visible, which makes it likely to have been originally a part of the Book of Breathings scroll. 

The evidence points to JS' belief that when he was dictating the BoA, he was translating the characters next to facsimile 1, which we now know is the Book of Breathings. We can argue all day about a missing scroll if we'd like, but the manuscript evidence compels us to acknowledge the likelihood that JS thought he was translating something that we have now identified to not be the BoA or related to Abraham.

 

When I first joined the church 37 years ago I said to a critic that I didn't care if Joseph was "translating" the patterns on the wallpaper of the room in which he was- the Book of A was still scripture.

There is a long history of seers seeing by staring into flames, crystal balls, seer stones etc.

I am glad the church has finally come around to accept my wisdom.

Not to mention my humility which has been a model for all on this board.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Well, given that the are some who claim we are missing a lot more of the papyri than we currently have, the fact that there is only a single disputed description which may or may not be interpreted as from a missing portion, is not evidence, in my mind that those portions we are missing are anything other than more Egyptian documents. And in fact if the only examples that are given of missing papyri are more references to what might be seen on Egyptian documents , I do not see how that helps.

 

The Haven account is used as evidence to show we are missing documents. All of that is based on her use of the term "long".. I find it a bit ironic that a description she gave of the tripod snake and Eve, which seems to fit a portion of what we have, except for the fact that the tail does not rest on the ground, is grounds for concluding she was talking about some thing else, while at the same time assuming that 'long' meant more than a comparison between the two scrolls of unknown length shown to her in a small room in an attic. So somehow we know exactly what she meant by tripod (or whomever she was quoting) and long.

I believe the Hevan snake and Eve reference applies to the link I provided, but even if it doesn't it is not much help in demonstrating that the missing papyri contains anything other than Egyptian funerary documents.

 

I do not know how much research you have done on the papyri, but there are several accounts that describe the scrolls showing evidence for two or more scrolls plus other Egyptian writings. It is a no brainer that we do not have all of the documents that Joseph Smith bought from Chandler. But the link the picture in the link that you provided does not jibe with Haven's description of the picture that she saw. At the time that Charlotte Haven saw the documents, some had already been placed in slides under glass. Lucy Mack Smith read or more than likely recited from memory features from two additional rolls. There isn't much more we can debate because I know that I have biases, but I would need something more than another bias to have me believe that the picture in the link is the one Charlotte Haven was referring to. At this point, I am letting Charlotte's not very friendly report stand as read. I ahve an idea though that you will not be swayed. 

Glenn

[bcuzbcuz]

22 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.  To abandon The Book of Abraham would be to give up a rich reservoir of distinctly Mormon doctrine. 

Shouldn't that read:

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

[Kenngo1969]

43 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Shouldn't that read:

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

Is substance-free sneering your specialty?  If so, you do it very well. Congratulations!

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours 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. 

You are misinterpreting the application of the word theory. There were theories advanced by some as reasons for the practice or doctrine (whatever you choose to call it) which the Church today disavows, but that doesn't mean it disavows the practice or doctrine itself. Nothing in the essay justifies that conclusion.

 

[Thinking]

23 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.

If the alleged marvelous, miraculous what isn't really accurate, it doesn't really matter how marvelous and miraculous IT seems to be.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Foreigner said:

I can see Mormon doctrine without BoA virtually intact.

OK.  I cannot see Mormon doctrine remaining "virtually intact" after Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and gifts have been laid waste.  To each, his or her own.  I wish you well.

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If the alleged marvelous, miraculous what isn't really accurate, it doesn't really matter how marvelous and miraculous IT seems to be.

If that case is closed for you, that's your business.  It's still open for me.