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

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours 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/

Brother Hauglid (provided you are representing it accurately here) is entitled to his opinion, but last I checked, he isn't one of The Fifteen.

Quote

 

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.

 

One would think that Joseph Smith's myriad detractors would be shouting about that "blatant inaccuracy" from the rooftops.  As for what the manuscript evidence "compels me" to acknowledge, I'm stubborn.  Perhaps I will be the jury's final recalcitrant holdout after all of the rest of you have rendered a verdict finding Joseph Smith guilty of fraud, but, if so, so be it.

[mfbukowski]

5 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.

You clearly do not understand what he was saying at all.

And pray tell how a "what" can be "accurate"?

And how does one determine if what the what SEEMS to be is "accurate"?

One seldom hears such a mass of confusion.

[Kenngo1969]

14 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.

I don't think I've heard all of the evidence yet.  If you've already rendered a verdict, that's your business.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Brother Hauglid (provided you are representing it accurately here) is entitled to his opinion, but last I checked, he isn't one of The Fifteen.

One would think that Joseph Smith's myriad detractors would be shouting about that "blatant inaccuracy" from the rooftops.  As for what the manuscript evidence "compels me" to acknowledge, I'm stubborn.  Perhaps I will be the jury's final recalcitrant holdout after all of the rest of you have rendered a verdict finding Joseph Smith guilty of fraud, but, if so, so be it.

For what it's worth, I'll stand with you.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Brother Hauglid (provided you are representing it accurately here) is entitled to his opinion, but last I checked, he isn't one of The Fifteen.

 

But, but, [sputter] Hauglid (allegedly) said it in Reel's Church of the Holy Podcast. Doesn't that make it incontrovertible truth?

Oh, maybe I'm conflating it with Dehlin's Church of the Holy Podcast.

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But, but, [sputter] Hauglid (allegedly) said it in Reel's Church of the Holy Podcast. Doesn't that make it incontrovertible truth?

Oh, maybe I'm conflating it with Dehlin's Church of the Holy Podcast.

 

I think Bishops Dehlin and Reel, respectively, preside over different wards of the Church of the Holy Podcast.  

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Brother Hauglid (provided you are representing it accurately here) is entitled to his opinion, but last I checked, he isn't one of The Fifteen.

One would think that Joseph Smith's myriad detractors would be shouting about that "blatant inaccuracy" from the rooftops.  As for what the manuscript evidence "compels me" to acknowledge, I'm stubborn.  Perhaps I will be the jury's final recalcitrant holdout after all of the rest of you have rendered a verdict finding Joseph Smith guilty of fraud, but, if so, so be it.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For what it's worth, I'll stand with you.

  It's worth quite a lot.  I think quite highly of you, and always have.  I suspect that, far from being two lonely, stubborn holdouts on such a jury, we actually would be in quite good company.  

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Brother Hauglid (provided you are representing it accurately here) is entitled to his opinion, but last I checked, he isn't one of The Fifteen.

One would think that Joseph Smith's myriad detractors would be shouting about that "blatant inaccuracy" from the rooftops.  As for what the manuscript evidence "compels me" to acknowledge, I'm stubborn.  Perhaps I will be the jury's final recalcitrant holdout after all of the rest of you have rendered a verdict finding Joseph Smith guilty of fraud, but, if so, so be it.

Prophets see things differently than we do.  We have no way of knowing whether or not it is an accurate translation of something Abraham actually wrote, delivered perfectly word for word by God. There is no way to verify OR deny that thesis through scientific means- but the spirit is another thing.

Again we are perhaps confusing two different types of verification of two different ways of seeing reality

On the other hand, even applying a more scientific view, a misstatement by a fallible prophet which he strongly believed was accurate, about his own writings, hardly constitutes "fraud".  And even on this view  it is also possible that God delivered it word for word, that it was an ancient document AND that it only "appears" to be a misstatement by Joseph which is actually "accurate" but cannot be verified because the original is lost forever and the papyrus was the catalyst used for translation as the seer stone was for the Book of Mormon

You can take your pick but even then it does not have to be either- or.

There might be a hundred different ways to see this that do not require the accusation of "fraud" which, even in court, is very difficult to prove.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

  It's worth quite a lot.  I think quite highly of you, and always have.  I suspect that, far from being two lonely, stubborn holdouts on such a jury, we actually would be in quite good company.  

As I often say, given the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

Edited to add:

I use that expression so often, I feel I should give credit for it. I derived it from Robert Millet, specifically from this quote:

 

Quote

 

Doctrinal truth comes not through the exploration of scholars but through the revelations of

God to apostles and prophets. And if such a position be labeled as narrow, . . . or anti-

intellectual, then so be it. I cast my lot with the prophets.

(Robert L. Millet,

Getting at the Truth,

[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004], p.42.)

 

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Apart from the historicity issue, the Book of Abraham has been disparaged by some who have minimized its doctrinal and theological import, at least one critic here on this thread saying it is not quoted in general conference very often (as though that were a determinative factor).

In reality, as with all scripture, there is much that is precious, beneficial and enlightening in the Book of Abraham, as this chapter in one of the CES manuals shows.

I think it sad that some who are determined to discard the Book of Abraham because of things they don't understand about its origins cheat themselves out of gospel enlightenment that a serious doctrinal study of the book might yield.

If nothing else, the Book of Abraham ought to be studied by Latter-day Saints alongside their study of the Book of Genesis for the additional revelatory insights they might gain from this book that, like the Book of Mormon, came forth in latter days by the gift and power of God.

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apart from the historicity issue, the Book of Abraham has been disparaged by some who have minimized its doctrinal and theological import, at least one critic here on this thread saying it is not quoted in general conference very often (as though that were a determinative factor).

In reality, as with all scripture, there is much that is precious, beneficial and enlightening in the Book of Abraham, as this chapter in one of the CES manuals shows.

I think it sad that some who are determined to discard the Book of Abraham because of things they don't understand about its origins cheat themselves out of gospel enlightenment that a serious doctrinal study of the book might yield.

If nothing else, the Book of Abraham ought to be studied by Latter-day Saints alongside their study of the Book of Genesis for the additional revelatory insights they might gain from this book that, like the Book of Mormon, came forth in latter days by the gift and power of God.

 

 

 

Not to mention the facsimilies as keys to the meaning of temple symbols for those with the eyes to see the symbolic alphabet repeated in the ordinances.

There is no way Joseph could have interwoven Egyptian symbols creating from it Christian meanings.  I wish we could discuss this, but with you, I will stand with the prophets as well.

The notes on the side of the facsimilies are the key.  Clearly the existence of the notes in the first place shows that the symbolic code is intended to be studied, yet no one to my knowledge actually does

It's pretty clear- are the figures in the facsimilies performing gestures similar to the temple gestures?  How are the figures drawn?  Could it be that the same gesture in the temple correlates to the meanings expressed in the facsimile symbols?  And if they are, combining the symbols as one combines letters to make a word, are there coded meanings there?

If there were of course we could not talk about them anyway.  For those with the ears to hear....

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention the facsimilies as keys to the meaning of temple symbols for those with the eyes to see the symbolic alphabet repeated in the ordinances.

There is no way Joseph could have interwoven Egyptian symbols creating from it Christian meanings.  I wish we could discuss this, but with you, I will stand with the prophets as well.

The notes on the side of the facsimilies are the key.  Clearly the existence of the notes in the first place shows that the symbolic code is intended to be studied, yet no one to my knowledge actually does

It's pretty clear- are the figures in the facsimilies performing gestures similar to the temple gestures?  How are the figures drawn?  Could it be that the same gesture in the temple correlates to the meanings expressed in the facsimile symbols?  And if they are, combining the symbols as one combines letters to make a word, are there coded meanings there?

If there were of course we could not talk about them anyway.  For those with the ears to hear....

 

Wow! My head is swimming.

Makes me believe there is a whole world of meaning to be uncovered there.

And if in this, perhaps other scripture as well, on which we only scratch the surface with our cursory understanding.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apart from the historicity issue, the Book of Abraham has been disparaged by some who have minimized its doctrinal and theological import, at least one critic here on this thread saying it is not quoted in general conference very often (as though that were a determinative factor).

In reality, as with all scripture, there is much that is precious, beneficial and enlightening in the Book of Abraham, as this chapter in one of the CES manuals shows.

I think it sad that some who are determined to discard the Book of Abraham because of things they don't understand about its origins cheat themselves out of gospel enlightenment that a serious doctrinal study of the book might yield.

If nothing else, the Book of Abraham ought to be studied by Latter-day Saints alongside their study of the Book of Genesis for the additional revelatory insights they might gain from this book that, like the Book of Mormon, came forth in latter days by the gift and power of God.

I think the Book of Abraham holds one of the most meaningful scripture for all Latter-day Saints, for any who seek God in fact:

"And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers."

[strappinglad]

Having drug myself kicking and screaming ( and nodding off ) through Nibley's " The Joseph Smith Papyrus " , if I learned only one thing, it was that Egyptian can and often does have many layers of meaning and can be used to convey ideas from disparate sources . After reading the 5 levels of translation needed to get to the English, the interpretation of the English text was ... um... elusive .

Cold war spycraft was capable of embedding a message within plain English text. Only the initiates would know how to tease it out. If one thinks the Egyptians and others were any less able using an already symbolic language , then one would be in error. Look up the meaning of the word ' hieroglyph ' .

[stemelbow]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 10:46 AM, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all! 😀

In reading the following from the church's "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham" essay, I began to wonder if the church will ever change its position that it "embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."  

"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, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 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."

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

"Abraham, who was born in about 2000  B.C., was the father of Isaac and the grandfather of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. (See BibleDictionary, “chronology,” 635–36.)"

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

If Abraham lived ~2000 B.C., then the belief that copies of copies of copies (that survived for over 2,000 years) of his (Abraham's) writings ended up in a random funerary text with NO mention of Abraham's name is difficult for most people to accept.  Add onto that the fact that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham," and it is a huge mental/spiritual leap to "embrace it as scripture," IMO.  

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?  

 

I think the Church can benefit from an all things are possible type of thinking on this.  Historic?  Effective historicity?  The Church doesn't have to answer it because of things like the catalyst theory.  It could always be that Abraham did at least think some of what is written in the BoA and if so, perhaps God told Joseph what to write to best convey what Abraham or at least that God wanted Joseph to think Abraham thought.  And, if so, perhaps the papyrus was of less significance, only given to Joseph as a catalyst for such revelation. 

Or whatever.  With all the helpful theories, though, the Church, I think, can always just barely avoid answering the question directly ever, because she can always fall back on, "eh...it's still possible". 

[Gray]

19 hours 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.

Any religion as far as I'm aware. History is an academic discipline. If the historicity of a text cannot be demonstrated using those tools and rules, then it's not a history.

I'm not saying we can definitively ruled out that those things happened, just that they're not historical, IE they cannot be attested using sound historical methodologies. Scripture contains theology, wisdom teaching, proverbs and myth, but history is an entirely different genre.

And of course there is the issue of "ancientness". The Bible is ancient, but not necessarily historical. It's a historical source, but not a history. Some stories in the Bible can be verified historically with some degree of probability, many cannot. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Brother Hauglid (provided you are representing it accurately here) is entitled to his opinion, but last I checked, he isn't one of The Fifteen.

The issue is scholarship, not spirituality. The "fifteen" are spiritual leaders, not scholars of ancient scriptures. 

 

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One would think that Joseph Smith's myriad detractors would be shouting about that "blatant inaccuracy" from the rooftops.  

They are!

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 0:10 PM, rongo said:

I don't think so.

Even if the Church ever did, I would still retain my belief that it is scripture.  

But it's possible to believe it is scripture without believing it is "historical scripture".

The book of Job is scripture but is it historical? Most scholars will agree that it isn't historical. That doesn't dismiss Job as having no scriptural value.

There are numerous examples of how we believe in non-historical scripture and we seem to survive just fine, gleaning the value from the principles, not from the historicity.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wow! My head is swimming.

Makes me believe there is a whole world of meaning to be uncovered there.

And if in this, perhaps other scripture as well, on which we only scratch the surface with our cursory understanding.

 

Look up Nibley on the facsimiles and start with facsimile 2, figure 7, and just look at it as a kid would see the "pictures". I think that is how Joseph saw it and he let the spirit take him from there to where the spirit wanted him to go. See gestures as shapes and as a kind of semiphore code. Note the facsimiles themselves are circles.

Edited January 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But it's possible to believe it is scripture without believing it is "historical scripture".

The book of Job is scripture but is it historical? Most scholars will agree that it isn't historical. That doesn't dismiss Job as having no scriptural value.

There are numerous examples of how we believe in non-historical scripture and we seem to survive just fine, gleaning the value from the principles, not from the historicity.

This is true, but I don't see the Church ever encouraging this view. And if it did, I wouldn't adhere to it . . .  

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps I will be the jury's final recalcitrant holdout after all of the rest of you have rendered a verdict finding Joseph Smith guilty of fraud, but, if so, so be it.

To clarify, I'm not accusing JS of fraud. I believe he was sincere and produced inspiring and powerful texts, just that he was mistaken in thinking he was providing actual translations.

It occurred to me yesterday that JS' translation is somewhat similar to the "interpretation of tongues" as practiced by Pentecostals and others. Speaking in tongues or glossolalia is generally just nonsense syllables, according to studies of the subject. However, adherents are able to "interpret" this glossolalia into real world language and concepts that are spiritually significant to the participants. JS' translation has nothing to do with the underlying ancient text he possessed, but through the process of "translating" he was able to produce something spiritually significant for those who are open to it. 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

To clarify, I'm not accusing JS of fraud. I believe he was sincere and produced inspiring and powerful texts, just that he was mistaken in thinking he was providing actual translations.

It occurred to me yesterday that JS' translation is somewhat similar to the "interpretation of tongues" as practiced by Pentecostals and others. Speaking in tongues or glossolalia is generally just nonsense syllables, according to studies of the subject. However, adherents are able to "interpret" this glossolalia into real world language and concepts that are spiritually significant to the participants. JS' translation has nothing to do with the underlying ancient text he possessed, but through the process of "translating" he was able to produce something spiritually significant for those who are open to it. 

That's an insightful way of putting it, thanks!

[ERayR]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

To clarify, I'm not accusing JS of fraud. I believe he was sincere and produced inspiring and powerful texts, just that he was mistaken in thinking he was providing actual translations.

It occurred to me yesterday that JS' translation is somewhat similar to the "interpretation of tongues" as practiced by Pentecostals and others. Speaking in tongues or glossolalia is generally just nonsense syllables, according to studies of the subject. However, adherents are able to "interpret" this glossolalia into real world language and concepts that are spiritually significant to the participants. JS' translation has nothing to do with the underlying ancient text he possessed, but through the process of "translating" he was able to produce something spiritually significant for those who are open to it. 

I feel sorry for those of you who think this way.  You miss so much.

[Bobbieaware]

23 hours 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.  

The essay says the theories used over the years to explain possible reasons why there was a priesthood ban are disavowed, not that the ban itself was a theory.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This is true, but I don't see the Church ever encouraging this view. And if it did, I wouldn't adhere to it . . .  

Are you talking about only the BoA or the general concept of scriptural value sans historicity?

If the church encouraged that kind of view, wouldn't you view it as a prophetic endorsement of the different view and as such, worthy of following? Or are you presupposing you have all necessary knowledge and that prophets cannot add to that understanding? If they cannot add, why not? Fallibility?

If you believe it is possible for current prophets to be fallible, why is it impossible to think a past prophet like JS could also be fallible. I don't see much consistency in your logic.