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

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

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?

I forget in which of his books, but Bart Ehrman does talk about how documents that read "written by the hand of" or some variation of that were actually written by scribes.  I could find it later tonight if anyone is interested, but don't have the time now.

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

There is nothing in the essay that states it was directed by God, is there?

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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...  

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

 

They just have to make it clear what Ham's curse (actually Canaan) was is unknown (at most, it makes Canaan a servant of servants...which would make Shem a servant because Canaan is then said to be Shem's servant or it could be interpreted that Canaan is God's servant, assuming the English conveys the right sense) and who it applied to as well.  If it continued as a literal curse in all Canaan's posterity and not just Canaan as it is worded (names of progenitors are often used for a tribal identity), it would have to apply to the whole world by now given the intermingling of tribes/nations.

"25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

Edited January 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

I think there are some pretty significant historical reasons that support the idea it was not directed by God as well, some that do...but less persuasive in my opinion.

[rongo]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

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?

"by his own hand" is an ancient formula with a certain accepted meaning. That Joseph Smith rendered it this way is a small evidence in his favor, I think. 

As for your second question? Maybe like Mormon did to make it clear that the plates of Nephi were actually written by Nephi:

"This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record."

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? 

I believe that he did translate the scrolls by the gift and power of God. This doesn't mean that he was doing a scholarly (as understood today) mechanical translation, with grammars, lexicons, and dictionaries. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I forget in which of his books, but Bart Ehrman does talk about how documents that read "written by the hand of" or some variation of that were actually written by scribes.  I could find it later tonight if anyone is interested, but don't have the time now.

It would be nice as nothing came up in a quick google.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours 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.

Your previous phrasing was muddled. I understand as you describe it here.

Quote

Rongo- 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. 

I think you're fooling yourself by stating that there is a difference. The attitude is the same. The only difference is in timing.

Your hypothetical hasn't happened yet, but maybe mine has.

If you are willing to disregard the prophet if X happens, then you also lack trust in God's continued use of prophets. Otherwise you would accept the hardline approach of accepting every word from the prophet's mouth.

And I agree with you that fallibility and trustworthiness walk a fine line. A person may have the best of intentions but if you can't trust their judgment then there is by definition a lack of trust. I acknowledge though that there is a diverse spectrum of "trustworthy", from perfectly trustworthy to perfectly corrupt.

 

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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?

Who can say they are not the words of Abraham, written by his own hand; and copied by someone else.  In a rush to reject the BoA critics have claimed that it meant that very scroll was copied by Abraham when it is a perfectly good and reasonable way of saying that it is Abraham's words as he wrote them, copied verbatim.

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I forget in which of his books, but Bart Ehrman does talk about how documents that read "written by the hand of" or some variation of that were actually written by scribes.  I could find it later tonight if anyone is interested, but don't have the time now.

Quote

 

ERayE

Who can say they are not the words of Abraham, written by his own hand; and copied by someone else.  In a rush to reject the BoA critics have claimed that it meant that very scroll was copied by Abraham when it is a perfectly good and reasonable way of saying that it is Abraham's words as he wrote them, copied verbatim.

 

Like others, i think that is the least of the problems with what Joseph Smith testified he was doing and what the scrolls were.  Do you want to comment on the most important part of what I asked?

Edited January 23, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

"by his own hand" is an ancient formula with a certain accepted meaning. That Joseph Smith rendered it this way is a small evidence in his favor, I think. 

As for your second question? Maybe like Mormon did to make it clear that the plates of Nephi were actually written by Nephi:

"This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record."

 

I believe that he did translate the scrolls by the gift and power of God. This doesn't mean that he was doing a scholarly (as understood today) mechanical translation, with grammars, lexicons, and dictionaries. 

What does it mean then.  Was it a translation or was it a completely different narrative that had nothing to do with the scrolls?  

And you didn't really answer my question. 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?

Edited January 23, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Who can say they are not the words of Abraham, written by his own hand; and copied by someone else.  In a rush to reject the BoA critics have claimed that it meant that very scroll was copied by Abraham when it is a perfectly good and reasonable way of saying that it is Abraham's words as he wrote them, copied verbatim.

You also didn't really answer my question.  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?  

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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?

As of now I have no evidence that he didn't translate Egyptian writing into English and there is ample evidence that he had such writings in amounts much greater than we presently have found.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is nothing in the essay that states it was directed by God, is there?

The default understanding that has been in place in the Church for many years is that it was directed by God. That understanding continued long after the 1978 revelation. By my way of thinking, a default understanding, by definition, remains in place unless and until there comes a direct statement to the contrary to dislodge it.

There is no direct statement one way or the other in the Gospel Topics essay. However, there are these pertinent passages in the essay:

Quote

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

(Emphasis mine)

Quote

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”²¹ The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women.

(Emphasis mine)

My reasoning is if the ban had been contrary to the will of the Lord, He would not have waited so long to answer the supplications from His servants for guidance with regard to this matter that, apparently, was weighing heavily on their minds. Especially President Kimball, who, by his own account, spent many hours in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple petitioning the Lord for an answer.

Now, you can argue, I suppose, that the Church leaders were too hardhearted and stiff-necked to fulfill their divine duty to receive revelation when it comes to them. But that strikes me as an extremely tenuous argument. It goes back to the matter of trustworthiness (not infallibility). If you can't trust the First Presidency and the apostles as a body to receive and implement guidance from the Lord -- after they have specifically sought that guidance -- I frankly don't know who you can trust.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You also didn't really answer my question.  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?  

He could simply state that it was physically written by Abraham.  He did not do that.  Example:  I have some books written by Hugh Nibley.  On the front they say BY Hugh Nibley.  Now I am certain that the books I have came from a printing company and Nibley did not personally write the book I have in my library and as it is a copy of what was written by the hand of Hugh Nibley I am also sure it was written by the hand of Hugh Nibley.

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The default understanding that has been in place in the Church for many years is that it was directed by God. That understanding continued long after the 1978 revelation. By my way of thinking, a default understanding, by definition, remains in place unless and until there comes a direct statement to the contrary to dislodge it.

 

According to Elder Anderson, that's not how it works:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

None of them are teaching that the priesthood ban was inspired by God. 

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

What does it mean then.  Was it a translation or was it a completely different narrative that had nothing to do with the scrolls?  

 

It was a correct and accurate transmission of authentic temple and Abrahamic content, as transmitted by the Soter family records during the Ptolemaic period (Book of Breathings by Hor, Book of the Dead, etc.). 

It didn't "have nothing to do with the scrolls," in my opinion. I'm not a pure catalyst theory fan. 

And you didn't really answer my question. 

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?

Sure I did!  

"This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record."

Or, I suppose you could simply say, "Abraham, himself, the actual Biblical patriarch, actually wrote this himself. Not scribes transmitting it down through the ages."  

[stemelbow]

5 hours 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.

Fine.  He can speak for himself.  I"ll speak for me then.  The Pre-1978 position itself:  "President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. "

Pre-1978 position itself:  "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality"

Read the 1949 First Presidency statement here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

The essay: "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.

As I read it, the pre-1978 position has been disavowed. 

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I think the human mind is amazingly complicated, and capable of seeing patterns within data of all kinds that the authors of that data never intentionally created.  Its fascinating how imagination and inspiration all play a part in the enterprise of art and religion.  I tend to think that we discover God through our efforts to see something more than just the surface level meaning in things.  

In this sense God is created through our efforts as humans to discover beauty and meaning as we organize the patterns that exist in life.  As long as these patterns and pictures expand our views and uphold fundamental moral values of love, charity, forgiveness, goodness, inclusiveness, etc.  Whenever we find patterns that point towards values that are limiting and damning, we must remember the core values of the gospel are the key, not the patterns we create through our explorations and imaginations, and we must reject those things that conflict with our core values.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fine.  He can speak for himself.  I"ll speak for me then.  The Pre-1978 position itself:  "President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. "

Pre-1978 position itself:  "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality"

Read the 1949 First Presidency statement here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

The essay: "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.

As I read it, the pre-1978 position has been disavowed. 

The misguided theories offered to try to explain it have been disavowed. Contrary to how you read it, the position itself has not been disavowed.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

According to Elder Anderson, that's not how it works:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

None of them are teaching that the priesthood ban was inspired by God. 

None of them teach anything at all about it today, because it is in the past.

None of them have ever, now or in the past, taught that it was not of God. I repeat, there has never been a disavowal of it, just of the misguided theories that were offered to try to explain it.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

They just have to make it clear what Ham's curse (actually Canaan) was is unknown (at most, it makes Canaan a servant of servants...which would make Shem a servant because Canaan is then said to be Shem's servant or it could be interpreted that Canaan is God's servant, assuming the English conveys the right sense) and who it applied to as well.  If it continued as a literal curse in all Canaan's posterity and not just Canaan as it is worded (names of progenitors are often used for a tribal identity), it would have to apply to the whole world by now given the intermingling of tribes/nations.

"25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

This would help, but I think because of statements by church leaders in the early church such as Brigham Young and others who used the BoA as justification for discrimination, there ought to be an even more explicit change in wording.  Its kind of like the changes made in the BoM recently, when discussing curses on the Lamanites.  Some minor changes were made, which help, but I think additional changes would be more helpful to dispel anyone accidentally holding on to views from statements made in the past.

What would really help even more would be some conference talks openly discussing the errors of the past with respect to race and specifically identifying things we currently disavow.  Some formal apologies to all those we've discriminated against and how our church practices have been at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ in the past and even in the present.  Some real talk about how harmful these statements have been to minorities.  Institutional repentance is needed.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The misguided theories offered to try to explain it have been disavowed. Contrary to how you read it, the position itself has not been disavowed.

I agree the misguided theories put out as official teachings by past church leaders have been disavowed.  I'd agree too that the pre-1978 ban from priesthood and temple have are no longer in place.  The essay states, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form".  The ban was based on race.  Thus, in one way the essay also distances the current Church from the ban itself. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Now, you can argue, I suppose, that the Church leaders were too hardhearted and stiff-necked to fulfill their divine duty to receive revelation when it comes to them. But that strikes me as an extremely tenuous argument. It goes back to the matter of trustworthiness (not infallibility). If you can't trust the First Presidency and the apostles as a body to receive and implement guidance from the Lord -- after they have specifically sought that guidance -- I frankly don't know who you can trust.

Church leaders are humans.  They make mistakes, its that simple.  

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

None of them teach anything at all about it today, because it is in the past.

None of them have ever, now or in the past, taught that it was not of God. I repeat, there has never been a disavowal of it, just of the misguided theories that were offered to try to explain it.

You can call them "misguided theories" looking back on it now (and I agree they were misguided, to say the least).  Of course, back then it was officially sanctioned doctrine espoused by the first presidency, much like opposition to gay marriage and it's subsequent theories are today. 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

None of them teach anything at all about it today, because it is in the past.

How many of them teach about the old law of adoption? Or blood atonement? 

 

Quote

None of them have ever, now or in the past, taught that it was not of God. I repeat, there has never been a disavowal of it, just of the misguided theories that were offered to try to explain it.

There has been a soft disavowal, for those with ears to hear. It is no longer taught that the ban was a commandment of God. According to Elder Anderson, "True principles are taught frequently and by many." No one is teaching this principle you are claiming is true. 

The way it seems to work in the church is that doctrines that have fallen out of favor are not taught anymore. There is very rarely a formal disavowal. Formal disavowals are difficult because they hurt confidence in church leadership. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Gray