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

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

I think he means that which is called theory in the essay--that which was previously used as the explanation for the ban--was doctrine, officially taught and sanctioned by the highest levels of the Church.  But today that which was codified in 1949 is disavowed as theory.  I'm guessing we'll see more of such things in the future.  After all, the weak things of the earth, or fallible men have said a lot for the Church since its beginning. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think he means that which is called theory in the essay--that which was previously used as the explanation for the ban--was doctrine, officially taught and sanctioned by the highest levels of the Church.  But today that which was codified in 1949 is disavowed as theory.  I'm guessing we'll see more of such things in the future.  After all, the weak things of the earth, or fallible men have said a lot for the Church since its beginning. 

But that's not what he said. I still believe he has a misconception about what is meant by "theory" in that essay. If he misspoke, let him clarify for himself and not rely on self-appointed spokesmen to do it for him.

I find the misconception rampant that the Church has disavowed the pre-1978 position itself. The essay does not sustain such a view.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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 . . .  

Don't worry; the Church will never encourage this view.

Bear in mind that one of the purposes of the Christ's Church, as defined in Ephesians 4:14, is "that we henceforth be no more ^achildren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of ^bdoctrine."

 

[rongo]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Good questions.

I'm talking about both. The active, vital core of believing members of the Church are scripture literalists/historicists, and in my opinion, institutional softening on this would lead to a catastrophic loss of activity and vitality (e.g., Community of Christ).

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?

No, I would view it as an uninspired attempt to stop bleeding, make the Church more palatable to a secular culture, etc.

Or are you presupposing you have all necessary knowledge and that prophets cannot add to that understanding? If they cannot add, why not? Fallibility?

I think that prophets do indeed add to understanding, by adding to it and expanding it. Not by retreating, offering mea culpas, throwing things under the bus, and allegorizing things. It's not a matter of fallibility for me, but rather, a matter of undermining the foundation. You eventually get to the point where either an actual Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, or he didn't. Or, an actual Abraham produced the Gedankengut of the Book of Abraham (not the scrolls themselves, but the content), or he didn't. If you try to shrug away the ultimate logical conclusions of the slippery slope, then what good is the restored Church?

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.

We all draw for ourselves lines that cannot be crossed, intellectually. For me, Joseph Smith could be fallible, but there has to be a certain level of historicity in the Book of Mormon or the Book of Mormon (or the Bible) for them to mean anything, and be worthwhile. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Good questions.

I'm talking about both. The active, vital core of believing members of the Church are scripture literalists/historicists, and in my opinion, institutional softening on this would lead to a catastrophic loss of activity and vitality (e.g., Community of Christ).

 

 

No, I would view it as an uninspired attempt to stop bleeding, make the Church more palatable to a secular culture, etc.

 

 

I think that prophets do indeed add to understanding, by adding to it and expanding it. Not by retreating, offering mea culpas, throwing things under the bus, and allegorizing things. It's not a matter of fallibility for me, but rather, a matter of undermining the foundation. You eventually get to the point where either an actual Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, or he didn't. Or, an actual Abraham produced the Gedankengut of the Book of Abraham (not the scrolls themselves, but the content), or he didn't. If you try to shrug away the ultimate logical conclusions of the slippery slope, then what good is the restored Church?

 

 

We all draw for ourselves lines that cannot be crossed, intellectually. For me, Joseph Smith could be fallible, but there has to be a certain level of historicity in the Book of Mormon or the Book of Mormon (or the Bible) for them to mean anything, and be worthwhile. 

I fully agree with this.

I find it interesting that some people seem locked into a false dichotomy and cannot distinguish between a belief in the infallibility of prophets and a belief in the trustworthiness of prophets.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fully agree with this.

I find it interesting that some people seem locked into a false dichotomy and cannot distinguish between a belief in the infallibility of prophets and a belief in the trustworthiness of prophets.

I guess I'm one of those people who don't understand what you're saying here. Do you mean "fallibility" of prophets and "trustworthiness"?

I find it interesting that many people have lost a level of trust in prophets but don't see it as such. I will openly admit that the fallibility of prophets diminishes my level of trust in the prophets. But it seems like people on the other side, like Rongo, also have a decreased level of trust in prophets.

He stated that he wouldn't follow the church in a certain direction because he "would view it as an uninspired attempt to stop bleeding, make the Church more palatable to a secular culture". I won't follow the prophet in certain directions because I view it as wrong, and Rongo does the same thing but in the opposite direction.

 

[Gray]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that's not what he said. I still believe he has a misconception about what is meant by "theory" in that essay. If he misspoke, let him clarify for himself and not rely on self-appointed spokesmen to do it for him.

I find the misconception rampant that the Church has disavowed the pre-1978 position itself. The essay does not sustain such a view.

It does sustain such a view. But it's ambiguously worded enough to allow people to come to the opposite conclusion. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess I'm one of those people who don't understand what you're saying here. Do you mean "fallibility" of prophets and "trustworthiness"?

I find it interesting that many people have lost a level of trust in prophets but don't see it as such. I will openly admit that the fallibility of prophets diminishes my level of trust in the prophets. But it seems like people on the other side, like Rongo, also have a decreased level of trust in prophets.

He stated that he wouldn't follow the church in a certain direction because he "would view it as an uninspired attempt to stop bleeding, make the Church more palatable to a secular culture". I won't follow the prophet in certain directions because I view it as wrong, and Rongo does the same thing but in the opposite direction.

It is a fine line between "infallible" and "trustworthy." And, I think we all have our line of demarcation in different places. 

One distinction I would make is that I was speaking in the subjunctive case ("contrary to fact," or hypothetical --- if, then). I think there's a difference between musing on what would happen "if," and being critical about what the Church has already done or already is doing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess I'm one of those people who don't understand what you're saying here. Do you mean "fallibility" of prophets and "trustworthiness"?

I find it interesting that many people have lost a level of trust in prophets but don't see it as such. I will openly admit that the fallibility of prophets diminishes my level of trust in the prophets. But it seems like people on the other side, like Rongo, also have a decreased level of trust in prophets.

He stated that he wouldn't follow the church in a certain direction because he "would view it as an uninspired attempt to stop bleeding, make the Church more palatable to a secular culture". I won't follow the prophet in certain directions because I view it as wrong, and Rongo does the same thing but in the opposite direction.

 

No one who has ever lived, except Christ, is infallible.

But you can be trustworthy without being infallible.

Some use the axiom that no one is infallible as an excuse for rejecting the words of the prophet, ignoring or neglecting the fact that even though the prophet is not infallible, he is nonetheless trustworthy.

I really don't get your confusion on this point. It seems self-evident to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is a fine line between "infallible" and "trustworthy." And, I think we all have our line of demarcation in different places. 

 

I don't agree that the line is all that fine.

We have all known trustworthy people, yet no one who has ever lived has been infallible.

[Thinking]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

The marvelous, miraculous what Ken was referring to is the doctrine found in the Book of Abraham.

If that doctrine isn't accurate, it doesn't matter how marvelous it seems.

It's really not that confusing.

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

It does sustain such a view. But it's ambiguously worded enough to allow people to come to the opposite conclusion. 

If it is ambiguously worded, then, by definition, it doesn't sustain such a view. Either the pre-1978 practice is disavowed or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

That said, I don't agree that the wording is all that ambiguous. I know what a disavowal should look like and, as pertaining to the pre-1978 practice itself, this is no disavowal.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No one who has ever lived, except Christ, is infallible.

But you can be trustworthy without being infallible.

Some use the axiom that no one is infallible as an excuse for rejecting the words of the prophet, ignoring or neglecting the fact that even though the prophet is not infallible, he is nonetheless trustworthy.

I really don't get your confusion on this point. It seems self-evident to me.

No Prophet is Perfect

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No one who has ever lived, except Christ, is infallible. But you can be trustworthy without being infallible.

I think the "fine line" comes in when you look at fallibility at a practical level. When people are fallible (and we all concede that everyone is), in those instances where they were fallible, they weren't trustworthy. Not ascribing motives, but simply "wrong." 

The $64,000 question is: how can we know when prophets are right, and when they are wrong. That is the work of a lifetime, and our own fallibility creeps in, too.  

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it is ambiguously worded, then, by definition, it doesn't sustain such a view. Either the pre-1978 practice is disavowed or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

That said, I don't agree that the wording is all that ambiguous. I know what a disavowal should look like and, as pertaining to the pre-1978 practice itself, this is no disavowal.

 

It does sustain the view by disavowing all racism and refusing to claim there was a divine origin for the ban. But it also allows conservatives room to quibble about the definition of racism, if they so choose. It's an indirect disavowal that can please both sides. Genius. 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Thinking said:

No Prophet is Perfect

I'm not going to plow through an old thread just to try to discern your point. We've all agreed that no one is perfect except Christ, and that includes prophets.

I stand by my position: Being trustworthy is not the same as being infallible.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the "fine line" comes in when you look at fallibility at a practical level. When people are fallible (and we all concede that everyone is), in those instances where they were fallible, they weren't trustworthy. Not ascribing motives, but simply "wrong." 

The $64,000 question is: how can we know when prophets are right, and when they are wrong. That is the work of a lifetime, and our own fallibility creeps in, too.  

Typically, when someone is spoken of as being trustworthy, it means he can generally be relied upon. No need to quibble over the term.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

It does sustain the view by disavowing all racism and refusing to claim there was a divine origin for the ban. But it also allows conservatives room to quibble about the definition of racism, if they so choose. It's an indirect disavowal that can please both sides. Genius. 

You are jumping to the conclusion that the ban was not directed by God. You don't have access to the knowledge to make such a conclusion.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Typically, when someone is spoken of as being trustworthy, it means he can generally be relied upon. No need to quibble over the term.

I agree. 

I don't think it's a quibble, though. If someone argues, for example, that Brigham Young, et. al., were simply flat-out wrong on the priesthood ban, and that God didn't countenance or approve of it, then they are saying that on that particular doctrine/practice, he/they aren't trustworthy. 

This holds true, even if one still believes that in almost all other things, he/they were reliable and correct ("can generally be relied upon," as you said). I believe that prophets and apostles can be trustworthy and relied upon, even if they are fallibly wrong on some things. The sticking point is what things, and how much relative weight each thing carries. 

The precarious thing, I think, is that it can be hard to maintain faith and trust if too many "fallibility exceptions" are put on the shelf. That's why the essays walk a fine line, I think (and, I think they do as good a job as possible, under the circumstances).

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are jumping to the conclusion that the ban was not directed by God. You don't have access to the knowledge to make such a conclusion.

I have sound moral grounds to confidently conclude that it wasn't directed by God. 

[hope_for_things]

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 haven't read all the responses yet, just this first comment in the post.  I have a few predictions that I can easily see happening in my lifetime.

1.  The church completely removes the facsimiles.

2.  The church modifies the wording at the beginning of the book that says today "The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.   (I think they'l also add some language to mirror the essay that talks to this text being inspired writings about Abraham.  

3.  They modify(soften) the words about a curse coming from Ham.  

 

[Thinking]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not going to plow through an old thread just to try to discern your point. We've all agreed that no one is perfect except Christ, and that includes prophets.

Yet there has to be some point in the fallibility curve where we begin to wonder if the alleged prophet really is a prophet. I have noticed that some faithful LDS have proclaimed that there is nothing they could discover that would cause any doubt about the truth claims of the LDS Church.

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I stand by my position: Being trustworthy is not the same as being infallible.

I agree with this.

[california boy]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not going to plow through an old thread just to try to discern your point. We've all agreed that no one is perfect except Christ, and that includes prophets.

I stand by my position: Being trustworthy is not the same as being infallible.

When Joseph Smith testified that the scrolls delivered to him were the words of Abraham written by his own hand and that he translated them by the power of God, was he being fallible in his error or does that make his claims untrustworthy? Or do you still maintain that he actually did translate an Egyptian writing of the Book of Abraham into English?

Edited January 23, 2017 by california boy

[rongo]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

When Joseph Smith testified that the scrolls delivered to him were the words of Abraham and that he translated them by the power of God, was he being infallible in his error or does that make his claims untrustworthy? Or do you still maintain that he actually did translate an Egyptian writing of the Book of Abraham into English?

This is probably the least problematic claim against the BoA, in my view. 

If I received a book, purported to be the "words of Charles ****ens," it certainly could be ---- even though not his actual handwriting. And, the "written by his own hand" was a standard formula in many diverse areas, in a time and in places without Xerox machines or Kinkos. It was a written way of signifying that it was a faithful copy of an ultimate original.

[california boy]

Just now, rongo said:

This is probably the least problematic claim against the BoA, in my view. 

If I received a book, purported to be the "words of Charles ****ens," it certainly could be ---- even though not his actual handwriting. And, the "written by his own hand" was a standard formula in many diverse areas, in a time and in places without Xerox machines or Kinkos. It was a written way of signifying that it was a faithful copy of an ultimate original.

That is possible, though I would say "written by his own hand" to be pretty clear what the actual claim was.  If something was actually physically written by Abraham, how would Joseph Smith state that better so that one could not come to the conclusion you have made?

What about the rest of the claim?  Joseph Smith testified that he translated the Egyptian scrolls by the power of God., Was he being infallible in his error or does that make his claims untrustworthy?