stemelbow Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Hugh Nibley on the book of Abraham: Quote Consider for a moment the scope and complexity of the materials with which the student must cope if he would undertake a serious study of the Book of Abraham's authenticity. At the very least he must be thoroughly familiar with (1) the texts of the “Joseph Smith Papyri” identified as belonging to the Book of the Dead, (2) the content and nature of mysterious “Sen-sen” fragment, (3) the so-called “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” attributed to Joseph Smith, (4) statements by and about Joseph Smith concerning the nature of the Book of Abraham and its origin, (5) the original document of Facsimile 1 with its accompanying hieroglyphic inscriptions, (6) the text of the Book of Abraham itself in its various editions, (7) the three facsimiles as reproduced in various editions of the Pearl of Great Price, (8) Joseph Smith's explanation of the facsimiles, (9) the large and growing literature of ancient traditions and legends about Abraham in Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Greek, Slavonic, etc., and (10) the studies and opinions of modern scholars on all aspects of the Book of Abraham. --Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 2nd ed. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 14 (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 2000), 154–155. As I side note, this struck me as I read this: http://tarikdlacour.blogspot.com/2017/05/answering-letter-to-ces-director-7.html?spref=Facebook&m=1 That's unrelated to what I wanted to discuss though. So back to Nibley, I pretended to want to be interested some years ago because, at that time, I learned that critics thought they won the game on this topic as much as any. So I read this and that. I got some book about One Eternal Round and tried to slog through it (I honestly really enjoy reading Nibley even if there is substance to the criticisms of him being sloppy and all that). I just really like his writing style, when he's not being mean to Fawn Brodie and others. I could never really get the first item cleared up. Each time I tried, I lost interest. 2 and 3 feel like they mean little to me. 4 is interesting, but they only go so far. 5 - ok the original. 6 various editions? Not a chance for me. The book itself is funny gobbly gook in some places. 7 pictures are cute but feel meaningless. 8 ok...9 no thanks. I mean maybe someday because in the long run that might produce the most interesting stuff in this whole affair. 10 If the LDS scholars of Muhlstein and Gee are to be considered modern scholars on this, I lost interest. Their ideas get me concerned, I admit. Anyway, putting that aside. Is there really any interest in the BoA for Church members? Really the only portion ever quoted, that I can recall is the part where Abraham was told he was a noble and great one before the world was as he tried to give us a glimpse to the council and all that. It's a fine enough teaching and idea. I hope we existed before this world and that we aren't some created out of nothing stuff. But other than that, who cares about that book? Or Is the book so good and important we are failing God's great intent by virtually ignoring it as a Church? Is it important like we used to say about Isaiah and yet we're neglecting it which is causing so much that is cursing us?
clarkgoble Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) As you note the part of the plan of salvation in Abraham 3 is quoted a lot. I'd go so far as to say it's among the most quoted scripture. Which makes the Book of Abraham important if only for those verses. I think Abraham 1, while note quoted like chapter 3, does get quoted a reasonable amount. Verse 3 in particular. Sadly verse 27 used to be quoted a lot to justify the priesthood ban. I think that's an acontextual reading but it was once common. Edited June 1, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Maidservant Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Well, it's interesting, because lately it has been in my mind and I have been pondering, pondering, pondering (without any conclusion at this point) the phrase: "I sought for the blessings of the fathers." (Abraham 1:1) And in my mind it is saying "I sought for the blessings of the mothers." We often say that the Priesthood is by calling, and yet it is beautiful that Abraham says "I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood." (1:4) I don't mean to make this thread into THIS^^^ subject. My point in bringing it up is that ALL scriptures--whether the Book of Abraham or others--have the potential to be re-read and re-understood, both on an individual basis as well as a collective basis guided by our prophet, as we move into new times, ages, and eras; and being blessed thereby. I could not have said that I 'needed' the book of Abraham (although I think it is cool as peaches), but I just find it very interesting that it is knocking on my (personal) revelatory door these days. So I guess I'm asking--what else or where else in the book of Abraham has blessed other posters (gospel and revelatory) lives? It would be really hard to quantify that it is being "virtually ignored". I mean, it must feel that way to you (OP), but I never considered that. It's THERE. It's an opportunity for me and has always been. So I guess that kind of thing is a personal assessment. Has it ever been 'top-of-the-shelf' in the Church? (I'm not a great Church historian, so I can't say.) But I absolutely care about that book. The Genesis material in it blows me away. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: .......................................... If the LDS scholars of Muhlstein and Gee are to be considered modern scholars on this, I lost interest. Their ideas get me concerned, I admit. ............................ Is there really any interest in the BoA for Church members? Really the only portion ever quoted, that I can recall is the part where Abraham was told he was a noble and great one before the world was as he tried to give us a glimpse to the council and all that. It's a fine enough teaching and idea. I hope we existed before this world and that we aren't some created out of nothing stuff. But other than that, who cares about that book? ................ Is the book so good and important we are failing God's great intent by virtually ignoring it as a Church? Is it important like we used to say about Isaiah and yet we're neglecting it which is causing so much that is cursing us? The BofA and Isaiah are hard but important stuff, yet we are not cursed for neglecting the hard stuff. Especially since it can require advanced degrees to truly understand such things. Most of us have more important things to do with our time. God doesn't demand that we become scholars in arcane areas, and that is certainly not a way to get to the Celestial Kingdom. Pres Monson did not ask that we read the BofA every day. I have tried to present some straightforward facts about the BofA, in proper context, but am not sure that it makes sense to anyone but me: “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . 3
clarkgoble Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 It's worth noting that the discussion of priesthood in Abr 1 was an important revelation leading Joseph to better understand priesthood and is the patriarchal priesthood. BCC had a good post a few years back. 1
CV75 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: Is there really any interest in the BoA for Church members? As long as there are people attending Sunday School where it is taught and discussed in a group setting using materials that took some effort to assemble, I would say yes.
probablyHagoth7 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) Quote "Consider for a moment the scope and complexity of the materials with which the student must cope if he would undertake a serious study of the Book of Abraham's authenticity. At the very least he must be thoroughly familiar with (1)...and (10) the studies and opinions of modern scholars on all aspects of the Book of Abraham. With due respect Hugh, Balderdash. With such a heavily-imposed, hamster wheel, one would need to study (and keep pace) with such shifting things almost to the exclusion of every other topic/duty, to *ever* be deemed properly trained to minister in that part of the vineyard. Where i see the rubber hitting the road. A soccer mom who comes across helpful insight on Abraham while driving to a game is as highly qualified to contribute as someone with 11.5 advanced degrees. If ye have the desire...called. Maidservant's comments were spot on what *I* needed today...as were yours. And if anyone were to even *suggest* that such contributions aren't "serious", I would wanna puke. In a church that moves forward *through lay ministry,* if the contribution of laypeople somehow isn't deemed sufficient, we're absolutely kidding ourselves. We lift where we happen to stand. Not where someone at a rostrum insists that we must first journey a second (thousand) miles before even thinking we're qualified *to* stand. I *very* rarely get angry, but this is the precise kinda thing in our culture that gets my knickers in a tightly-wound knot. Gordian even. The solution is to simply let the spirit speak. And to stop setting/accepting manmade arbitrary stakes that people must supposedly reach before they *can* contribute. /rant In times when I am guilty of doing that, any of you have Bunny-FooFoo permission to briefly scoop me up and bop me on the head. (But please be kind.) Quote Is the book so good and important we are failing God's great intent by virtually ignoring it as a Church? Is it important like we used to say about Isaiah and yet we're neglecting it which is causing so much that is cursing us? Could be true of any facet of scripture, or even any secular self-improvement choice. Which makes it less an issue of what checklist *someone else* says we should read/study/learn, and more an issue of what God wishes us to read/study/learn for our daily bread that day. Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7 1
probablyHagoth7 Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, stemelbow said: As I side note, this struck me as I read this: http://tarikdlacour.blogspot.com/2017/05/answering-letter-to-ces-director-7.html?spref=Facebook&m=1 Quote ...His fallacious appeal to authority by perfunctorily citing a few statements...is marked by the worst of what happens when an unqualified amateur armed with Wikipedia and some memes thinks he or she can authoritatively weigh in on a complex issue... Hmmm. Brings me back to my earlier comment. I appreciate the work and commitment that scholars put into their fields. Genuinely. Meanwhile, eye, hand, foot. I'm really hoping people in and out of the church continue to believe their contribution to any specific facet of a complex issue is direly needed. And that one doesn't need to first become an expert in every facet of a topic before wading in and making a difference. It's often the distilled pedestrian take on things, plainness, simplicity, that a typical viewer can readily pick up the baton and run with. That said, such distilled simplicity sometimes traces back to some scholar's hard work. We simply need each other's contribution. Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7 1
Tacenda Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 6 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said: With due respect Hugh, Balderdash. With such a heavily-imposed, hamster wheel, one would need to study (and keep pace) with such shifting things almost to the exclusion of every other topic/duty, to *ever* be deemed properly trained to minister in that part of the vineyard. Where i see the rubber hitting the road. A soccer mom who comes across helpful insight on Abraham while driving to a game is as highly qualified to contribute as someone with 11.5 advanced degrees. If ye have the desire...called. Maidservant's comments were spot on what *I* needed today...as were yours. And if anyone were to even *suggest* that such contributions aren't "serious", I would wanna puke. In a church that moves forward *through lay ministry,* if the contribution of laypeople somehow isn't deemed sufficient, we're absolutely kidding ourselves. We lift where we happen to stand. Not where someone at a rostrum insists that we must first journey a second (thousand) miles before even thinking we're qualified *to* stand. I *very* rarely get angry, but this is the precise kinda thing in our culture that gets my knickers in a tightly-wound knot. Gordian even. The solution is to simply let the spirit speak. And to stop setting/accepting manmade arbitrary stakes that people must supposedly reach before they *can* contribute. /rant In times when I am guilty of doing that, any of you have Bunny-FooFoo permission to briefly scoop me up and bop me on the head. (But please be kind.) Could be true of any facet of scripture, or even any secular self-improvement choice. Which makes it less an issue of what checklist *someone else* says we should read/study/learn, and more an issue of what God wishes us to read/study/learn for our daily bread that day. My daughter is named Bonnie and we would sing "Little Bonnie Foo Foo" to her when she was little. Just thought I'd share.
stemelbow Posted June 2, 2017 Author Posted June 2, 2017 19 hours ago, clarkgoble said: As you note the part of the plan of salvation in Abraham 3 is quoted a lot. I'd go so far as to say it's among the most quoted scripture. Which makes the Book of Abraham important if only for those verses. I think Abraham 1, while note quoted like chapter 3, does get quoted a reasonable amount. Verse 3 in particular. Sadly verse 27 used to be quoted a lot to justify the priesthood ban. I think that's an acontextual reading but it was once common. The BoA has been cited 808 times. More than all books of the OT from Leviticus to Job, less than plenty of others. the facsimiles have been cited 3 times. Chapter 3 has been cited 443 times. Chapter 1 has been cited 125 times. Within chapter 1, verse 2 has been cited the most, 48 times. verse 3 has been cited 19 times (only 7 times since 1970). Verse 27 has been cited 8 times. of course in each of these cases for verse 27 it was before 1970. In most cases where Abraham had been cited it was before 1970. Quote We have indexed the scriptures cited by speakers in LDS General Conference between 1942 and the present, and those cited by speakers recorded in the Journal of Discourses between 1839 and 1886. The citations in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith come from the special edition, Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Richard C. Galbraith and published by Deseret Book in 1993 (ISBN 0875796478). http://scriptures.byu.edu/ this is missing all references between the end of the JoD and conference in 1942 (nearly 60 years).
Recommended Posts