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

[JLHPROF]

15 hours 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....

 

Just as an interesting aside, many years ago the South Visitor's Center on Temple Square had a temple exhibit in the basement level (and a BoM on the upper).
One of the display cases had a key from one of the temples.

Its design had been cut to look like the throne from the facsimile - square with lines.  Quite an interesting piece of work.  I wish I had a picture of it.
Pretty sure I'm not misremembering - I'd hit up Temple Square once a week in the 90s so I was more than a little familiar.



 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I trust Church leaders more than I do you. It's that simple.

[hope_for_things]

8 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.

What about the word disavow do you not understand?  The essay is very clear on that point.  Honestly, I find attempts to defend past theories about the priesthood ban to be offensive as it seems to me like you're trying to defend previously racist doctrine.  I don't get it, and it makes me sad.  

The prior doctrines were racist by definition, and I personally don't believe God is a racist, therefore, I disavow those doctrines as coming from God.  This is the essence of the statement in the essay.  Could you explain the motivation to try and defend a racist doctrine as coming from God?  Are you saying God was racist in the past, but that he's not racist today?  

Quote

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. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

When the essay says that church leaders unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, this includes the priesthood ban.  The priesthood ban was racist, and therefore it is unequivocally condemned by church leaders.  This is so clear to me, I don't understand how you can read it otherwise.  

[JulieM]

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.

Except that Joseph wasn't "a kid" when he was looking at them.

And unfortunately, the leaders didn't officially approve of or sanction Hugh Nibley's writings on the papyri scrolls. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I trust Church leaders more than I do you. It's that simple.

Do you believe Church leaders are superhuman then?  I'm asking a sincere question, do you believe that they somehow transcend the regular faults and flaws of the human condition?  If so, can you tell me why you believe this, as I don't think there is anything in scripture or the gospel message to support your argument, but i would be interested in understanding why you take a position like this.  

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you believe Church leaders are superhuman then?  I'm asking a sincere question, do you believe that they somehow transcend the regular faults and flaws of the human condition?  If so, can you tell me why you believe this, as I don't think there is anything in scripture or the gospel message to support your argument, but i would be interested in understanding why you take a position like this.

Their humanity isn't the issue.
One man with God is always superhuman.  And God honors specific priesthood callings (ie "When you do what I say, I am bound".)

So yes, the men who have been ordained to the apostleship, when they are operating with the spirit and gifts of God, are absolutely more superhuman than those without the same calling and authority.  Doesn't make them perfect or immune to error.  But they do have more access to truth than most.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

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.

Well we do have the  facsimiles that have been published from the beginning which Joseph Smith claimed to translate.  As far as I understand it, the translation of those  facsimiles are not in the least bit accurate.  Do you have some evidence that these experts are all wrong and Joseph Smith translated them correctly?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 

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. 

 

So if you don't think the claim of Joseph Smith that he translated the Book of Abraham from the scrolls, then would you say that it points to his fallibility or trustworthiness?  I am not asking this to badger you, I really want to know how a faithful member deals with this.  Because personally it is one of the major things that I find for me to question the faith I had in the claims of Joseph Smith.  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

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.

What is "accurate doctrine" and how do we know it is "accurate"?????

As compared to what??? Do you have a perfect knowledge of correct doctrine we can compare it with?   Where is your evidence for your perfect doctrine you are comparing the accuracy against???

Not confusing?

[ERayR]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well we do have the  facsimiles that have been published from the beginning which Joseph Smith claimed to translate.  As far as I understand it, the translation of those  facsimiles are not in the least bit accurate.  Do you have some evidence that these experts are all wrong and Joseph Smith translated them correctly?

As I see it you can believe what you want.  Do you have evidence that the are not wrong.  Yes I did have some evidence they were wrong, at least enough for me, but I am sorry I am just starting my tax preparation season and do not have the time to find it.  I think ppaart of it was in Nibley.  Remind me at end of April.

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Their humanity isn't the issue.
One man with God is always superhuman.  And God honors specific priesthood callings (ie "When you do what I say, I am bound".)

So yes, the men who have been ordained to the apostleship, when they are operating with the spirit and gifts of God, are absolutely more superhuman than those without the same calling and authority.  Doesn't make them perfect or immune to error.  But they do have more access to truth than most.

I see this differently.  If a human (church leader) is saying something inspired by God, then those words have God's blessing and sanction and power.  I don't believe this makes that person statistically more likely to be speaking truth than you or me or anyone else.  I don't think evidence supports this idea that any human has more access to truth than most.  I think this is a fallacy.  

[strappinglad]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

.  I don't think evidence supports this idea that any human has more access to truth than most.  I think this is a fallacy.  

I'm constantly told that scientists have much more access to ' truth ' than the regular person and that therefore the regular person should bow in deference to  their superior knowledge. Now you are saying that is a fallacy?

Edited January 24, 2017 by strappinglad

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I see this differently.  If a human (church leader) is saying something inspired by God, then those words have God's blessing and sanction and power.  I don't believe this makes that person statistically more likely to be speaking truth than you or me or anyone else.  I don't think evidence supports this idea that any human has more access to truth than most.  I think this is a fallacy.  

I think it's gospel.
One of the first principles actually - the gift of the Holy Ghost for instance.  Whereby we may know the truth of all things.  But not all have that gift.

And moving on from first principles there is authoritative revelation - as in D&C 28:2.  Only Joseph was qualified to receive commandments from God.
And of those who have been taught in the temple Joseph said they would "be able to pray and get an answer".
And of those who are ordained to the highest and holiest office Joseph taught that they would be able to go on the mountains and "talk with their God".
So no, not all have equal access to truth.  The gospel is clear on that.

The fallacious idea that all are equal in all things appears to be rearing its ugly doctrinally unfounded head again.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Except that Joseph wasn't "a kid" when he was looking at them.

And unfortunately, the leaders didn't officially approve of or sanction Hugh Nibley's writings on the papyri scrolls. 

Two strikes in one post!

I never said he was a kid, but he sure could not read Egyptian. we all know that and the church acknowledges it.  I was suggesting a naive look at the pictures as I saw them for the first time in graduate school, also not knowing Egyptian, and as I am sure Joseph first saw them as well.

And I never said the leaders approved of Hugh Nibley. 

There are only interpretations and this post shows that perfectly so thank you for the illustration of how we go haywire from the actual statements made, by interpreting them.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well we do have the  facsimiles that have been published from the beginning which Joseph Smith claimed to translate.  As far as I understand it, the translation of those  facsimiles are not in the least bit accurate.  Do you have some evidence that these experts are all wrong and Joseph Smith translated them correctly?

The church readily acknowledges that- so what's your point?   Whatever it is, you are missing the point of the discussion.

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I'm constantly told that scientists have much more access to ' truth ' than the regular person and that therefore the regular person should bow in deference to  their superior knowledge. Now you are saying that is a fallacy?

Not at all.  Scientists are experts in their field of study, but that doesn't make them super human with respect to their abilities.  We should consider the field with which they have expertise and listen carefully to their understanding.  But they are still humans prone to bias, cultural influence, group think, etc.. I try to critically consider statements made by scientists as well.  

Do you think your average Mormon is more likely to question the statements of a scientist or the statements of a church leader?  I would assert that if Mormons used the same amount of critical thinking when it comes to church leaders as they do when they review science, the membership would be much better off.  As it is now, there is an extra special deference given to church leaders, it's in the culture, it's in the rhetoric, it's in the language of covenants, it's in tradition, all of this makes it so your average member I believe considers church leaders to have super human abilities.  This is an unfortunate thing in my opinion.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

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

 

Virtually none, because they are in the past. 

Don't know if you were trying to make my point for me, but I thank you just the same. 

There are myriad aspects of the Law of Moses that aren't taught today because they pertain to a time in the past. Circumcision, for one. 

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it's gospel.
One of the first principles actually - the gift of the Holy Ghost for instance.  Whereby we may know the truth of all things.  But not all have that gift.

And moving on from first principles there is authoritative revelation - as in D&C 28:2.  Only Joseph was qualified to receive commandments from God.
And of those who have been taught in the temple Joseph said they would "be able to pray and get an answer".
And of those who are ordained to the highest and holiest office Joseph taught that they would be able to go on the mountains and "talk with their God".
So no, not all have equal access to truth.  The gospel is clear on that.

The fallacious idea that all are equal in all things appears to be rearing its ugly doctrinally unfounded head again.

 

I just recently read about D&C 28 in Richard Van Wagoner's "Natural Born Seer", fascinating biography on Joseph Smith.  Two thumbs up on this, it's really an amazing book. Anyway, the context of that commandment if I recall correctly is around after two events that were a power play challenge to Joseph's authority.  The first was Oliver Cowdery's challenge of some words in the "Articles and Coventants" that later became D&C 20 today.  Oliver had written the revelation and when Joseph changed it Oliver was upset and commanded that Joseph change the words back.  After Joseph had conversations with Oliver and the Whitmers he was able to convince them that his wording was acceptable.  (Joseph was a very persuasive individual)

The second thing that happened was the infamous Hiram Page seer stone incident, where again Joseph's authority was challenged.  What came out of all this is what we have today in D&C 28.  Key verses to consider in addition to the historical background and the verse you share, would be verse 4-5 in the original it says "& if thou art led at any time by the comforter to speak or teach or at all times by the way of Commandment unto the Church thou mayst do it [5] But thou shalt not write by way of Commandment but by wisdom". It also talks about not commanding Joseph who's at the head of the church.  What I get out of these verses is not the same interpretation that you have.  I believe that Joseph was laying down the law on who can write revelations for the church (the two incidents above are about written commandments), and this is Van Wagoner's interpretation as well that verbal spoken commandments were still free game, but written ones weren't.  

Interesting history, anyway, I can also share scriptures about God granting access to the weak things of the world and if any of you lack wisdom and all that.  I believe the church was originally founded the idea that anyone has access to God equally.  I believe these are two competing issues that Joseph was torn between, his egalitarian original impulses and his attempts to keep everyone united in a growing organizational structure.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The church readily acknowledges that- so what's your point?   Whatever it is, you are missing the point of the discussion.

Scott Lloyd made this statement.

Quote

 

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.

 

His statement made me curious as to how members felt about Joseph Smiths statement on how the BoA came about.  Joseph Smith testified that the scrolls contained the words of Abraham and that through the power of God, he translated the scrolls into what we now have as the Book of Abraham.  

Does Joseph Smith's claim make him fallible or untrustworthy?  I really want to know how a faithful member deals with this.  Because personally it is one of the major things that I find for me to question the faith I had in the claims of Joseph Smith.

 

I have asked Scott, but he hasn't yet responded.  Love to have your thoughts and anyone else's thoughts as well.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What about the word disavow do you not understand?  The essay is very clear on that point.  Honestly, I find attempts to defend past theories about the priesthood ban to be offensive as it seems to me like you're trying to defend previously racist doctrine.  I don't get it, and it makes me sad.  

The prior doctrines were racist by definition, and I personally don't believe God is a racist, therefore, I disavow those doctrines as coming from God.  This is the essence of the statement in the essay.  Could you explain the motivation to try and defend a racist doctrine as coming from God?  Are you saying God was racist in the past, but that he's not racist today?  

When the essay says that church leaders unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, this includes the priesthood ban.  The priesthood ban was racist, and therefore it is unequivocally condemned by church leaders.  This is so clear to me, I don't understand how you can read it otherwise.  

If you're intent on refusing to pay attention to what I have already posted, at least have the courtesy not to bother me with questions I've already answered. This board has an asked-and-answered rule. 

Again, what has been disavowed are past misguided attempts to give a reason for the ban. The restriction itself has not been disavowed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Scott Lloyd made this statement.

His statement made me curious as to how members felt about Joseph Smiths statement on how the BoA came about.  Joseph Smith testified that the scrolls contained the words of Abraham and that through the power of God, he translated the scrolls into what we now have as the Book of Abraham.  

Does Joseph Smith's claim make him fallible or untrustworthy?  I really want to know how a faithful member deals with this.  Because personally it is one of the major things that I find for me to question the faith I had in the claims of Joseph Smith.

 

I have asked Scott, but he hasn't yet responded.  Love to have your thoughts and anyone else's thoughts as well.

 

 

I don't concede your assertion that Joseph Smith was wrong. And you don't have access to knowledge that would let you make that assertion definitively. 

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're intent on refusing to pay attention to what I have already posted, at least have the courtesy not to bother me with questions I've already answered. This board has an asked-and-answered rule. 

Again, what has been disavowed are past misguided attempts to give a reason for the ban. The restriction itself has not been disavowed. 

I'm not refusing to pay attention to what you've already posted, I read through all the comments on this current thread.  If you have other threads you've posted about this I would be happy to read what you've said in an attempt to understand.  

However, on this particular point, the wording of the essay is clear.  "Unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present..."  Since the past policy was racist, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, the essay condemns all past racism.  The wording is so clear that I don't understand how anyone can miss this point.  Condemnation of racism + past racist policy = condemnation of past policy.  

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede your assertion that Joseph Smith was wrong. And you don't have access to knowledge that would let you make that assertion definitively. 

So you still believe that Joseph Smith literally translated Egyptian from the scrolls that contained the words of Abraham?

Do you also believe that Joseph Smith translated the facsimiles correctly?

 I just want to make sure I have your assertion correct.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not refusing to pay attention to what you've already posted, I read through all the comments on this current thread.  If you have other threads you've posted about this I would be happy to read what you've said in an attempt to understand.  

However, on this particular point, the wording of the essay is clear.  "Unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present..."  Since the past policy was racist, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, the essay condemns all past racism.  The wording is so clear that I don't understand how anyone can miss this point.  Condemnation of racism + past racist policy = condemnation of past policy.  

Latter-day Saints implicitly believe that whatever God requires is right. Therefore, if the past restriction on the priesthood was required by God, the Church would not be including it in what is being condemned here. Clearly this is yet another case of an antagonist taking wording out of context.

I'm not bound by how you choose to construe the Church's pronouncements.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

So you still believe that Joseph Smith literally translated Egyptian from the scrolls that contained the words of Abraham?

Do you also believe that Joseph Smith translated the facsimiles correctly?

 I just want to make sure I have your assertion correct.

I hold to what is in the Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Abraham. If you want to know my position, go there.