- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was active for my first 20 years in the church and i never heard a single word about the origins of the books of Moses and Abraham. Shame on me for not knowing the origins of my own faith; but i would only read what my teachers would ask me to read, getting a “lessons and morals” view of the Book of Mormon. But i must confess a feeling of betrayal for never knowing that Smith just stared at the Bible and spoke the book of Moses, and that he purchased papyri from a traveling mummy exhibition and it just so happened to be an account of Abraham written in his own hand. It’s almost like the living church is a tunnel-vision form of the doctrinal and historical church. I have to ask those who are active- in the church today, are the books of Moses and Abraham being taught as truth? Are they included in lessons, missionary discussions, mormon views? Mentioned or taught at all? Or has the church sidelined and watered-down the importance of the Pearl of Great Price entirely, eventually leaving it behind? And do you believe it as true and divinely wrought as the Bible and Book of Mormon?
It would indeed be nice if the Church were a little more forthcoming about these origins that are troubling to members when they find out about them later. I’ve never been real clear about why they do this but then again, they never asked my opinion 
The Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham are certainly taught as truth although they are skimmed over fairly quickly.
My views are fundamentalist and I absolutely view these scriptures as true and of devine origin. I’ll guess that mainstream members do as well but I can’t speak for them. However, I read a book by Hugh Nibley awhile back on the Book of Moses that was the best commentary on it that I’ve ever seen.
As a Christian, I actually believe in the resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ….that’s re-animation of dead tissue…about as far-fetched and unexplainable an idea as one can come up with. The method that Joseph Smith brought us the Book of Moses or how the Lord saw fit to deliver the Book of Abraham to us pales in comparisson IMHO.
My opinion only.
Mileage may vary.
Quote:in the church today, are the books of Moses and Abraham being taught as truth?
Yes, but I agree with Bruce that they aren’t as emphasized. We do a 4-year rotation on the Old testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, D&C. I think the PoGP is just too short for a full year of rotation
Quote:Are they included in lessons, missionary discussions, mormon views? Mentioned or taught at all?
Yes, missionaries quote Moses 1:39 quite a bit, as well as Abraham 3:22-23 (at least I did on my mission 20 years ago)
Or has the church sidelined and watered-down the importance of the Pearl of Great Price entirely, eventually leaving it behind?
The church adds these in, but because the other scriptures are so much more voluminous, they get more attention.
Quote:And do you believe it as true and divinely wrought as the Bible and Book of Mormon?
Yes, I do. I know the origins are a little tough for some people but when we look at the “golden bible”, those claims were pretty absurd back then too. Moses’ 10 Commandments carved by the finger of the Lord–come on now. Jesus being resurrected–that makes no sense. Really, when we look at religious claims, all of them are suspect.
I need to do a post on the Book of Abraham, and compare it with the Gospel of Judas. I think there are some interesting parallels.
I’m not gonna say anything about Books of Moses and Abraham, I just want to point out that one of the things that makes this forum so great (imho) is that everyone seems to recognize the proper context of their beliefs relative to reason. That may sound like an underhanded complement but it’s not. I really mean it and it’s amazingly refreshing. Thank you all.
I really like the messages in them, and I think they “truly” point us to God, so I choose to accept them as inspired. Literal translations/transmissions of actual records? Probably not. Visionary messages that uplift and inspire and contribute to a fascinating theological perspective? Absolutely for me.
I think a good number of active members know a very general overview of where the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses came from. I don’t think many know the more detailed history and controversies. I personally think the Book of Moses is least problematic. Joseph claimed only to receive direct revelation about this as his source. I think the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are much more difficult. He claimed to translate those from ancient records — something tangible that can later be picked apart more easily outside a purely spiritual/religious context.
I think both books in the Pearl of Great Price contain fascinating mystical material. These days, I see them on par with anything else that is religious “scripture.” I am much less literal in my beliefs right now. I think scriptures contain divine truths in a metaphorical sense. I am not so hung up on them being factually correct or historical.
To reword it briefly, I am not so concerned about how people create or access the impulses of the divine. I am more concerned about the information being useful to me in my spiritual progress. Scriptures to me are more like poems than technical manuals. Both contain truths, just different types of truth.
I think in the 4 year rotation, the POGP books get included in with the D&C rotation, and of course, Moses and Abraham are referred to as the old testament scriptures are reviewed and taught. I think these have been included in our standard works, as well as the Joseph Smith History and Articles of Faith, so I do not believe they will go away.
The origins of any revelation and scripture need to be taken in faith, not literal or historically fact-based. It would be nice if they all fit neatly in a box that could be proven with DNA and archeological-type scientific evidence to prove authenticity, however, I don’t believe the Lord is concerned with providing such proof. The words are what are more important than how the Lord provided them. There is an order to follow that is also important to me, meaning Joseph Smith receiving revelation as the Lord’s appointed is more acceptable than just anyone receiving things that are not personal revelations…IOW, the Lord may use many devices to bring us His word, but it will be through his annointed servants.
In saying that, I realize there is a big debate we can have about that, because there are some things about how we could get some revelation from someone that does make it important to consider in gaining a testimony of it (for example, Lafferty boys getting revelation is subject to scrutiny when you see the kind of people they were), but for me, I have accepted Joseph Smith as a prophet from all the prior steps in my conversion, and so I do not have a problem with the Pearl of Great Price. In fact, the Book of Moses has some of my favorite scriptures in all the standard works.
Interestingly, D&C 67 is about how some early saints doubted Joseph’s ability to receive revelation and some members of the congregation thought they could do better. D&C 8-9 describe Oliver’s desires to write revelation and failed attempts at it. That whole process of receiving and documenting revelation is mysterious thing. I am constantly amazed we even have the standard works to reference continually, and they stand the test of time.
My questions has always been, Why does the BofM’s concept of God agrees with the Bible on the doctrine of God, yet conflicts with what Joseph said in later years and what was revealed in the Book of Abraham, which was supposed to be the most ancient scripture?Someone mentioned at an LDS book club that I hosted, in which we discussed, The Shack, that they felt like the author messed with doctrine; but to be fully honest, as Latter-Day Saints, we must recognize the changes and inconsistencies in Joseph’s doctrinal teachings, by looking carefully at what he either translated, received in modern day or what he preached. None of us actually know the true nature or all the mysteries of God, our only sources are from what we can read and take as scripture, and most of have taken the BofM as such. God did teach us to use our minds and reason things out. He even reasons with us, on our level at times, so we may understand. See Isaiah 1:18 and D&C 50:10-12. With that in mind, I encourage you to read on… if you are interested as I have included some highlights from an article that I read.
Mormon author Boyd Kirkland does not hesitate to label the doctrine of Deity in the Book of Mormon as ”monotheism” (one God). For example, in Alma 11:26-28 we read:
And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God. And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.Taken at face value, this passage clearly teaches monotheism.
The “Testimony of the Three Witnesses” that appears in the Preface to the Book of Mormon supports such a monotheistic interpretation. It concludes with the statement,
“And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”The belief that there is only one God — anywhere in this, or any other, universe — agrees with the teaching of the Bible. There are 27 biblical passages the explicitly state that there is only one God. One of these passages, Isaiah 44:6,8, states:
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer, the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any..A number of passages in the Book of Mormon present Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as the same Person. Theologians call this modalism, because Father and Son are understood, not as distinct persons, but merely as different modes in which the one God has manifested Himself at different times. Mosiah 15:1-3 presents such a modalistic view of the Father and Son:
And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son — The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son.Similarly, Mosiah 16:15 declares that Jesus is the Father: “Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father.” A modal view of Father and Son is also evident in Ether chapters 3:14: “Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (see also, Ether 4:7,12; Helaman 14:12).
Another historical reason for believing that Joseph Smith originally believed in only one God (and held a modalistic view of Jesus and the Father), is that his original First Vision story reflects such a view. Over the last thirty years LDS scholars have discovered that Joseph gave several different accounts of his First Vision, and that the earliest accounts are significantly different than the version in the Pearl of Great Price. The differences in these successive first vision accounts reflect an attempt to keep pace with changes in Joseph’s doctrine of Deity.
LDS historian Dean C. Jessee has documented, the earliest known First Vision account, a document from 1831-32 in Joseph’s own handwriting, describes the appearance of only a single divine personage, Jesus Christ. This is highly significant because it accords with the Book of Mormon’s modal monotheism, described above. It is understandable that when Joseph latter abandoned monotheism and began to teach the plurality of Gods, he would change his original First Vision story to make it consistent with the teaching that Father and Son are separate Gods
The movement from monotheism to the plurality of Gods described in the article was based on viewing the various LDS scriptures and teachings in the order they came forth from Joseph Smith. However, since parts are supposed to be restored, ancient revelation (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and Book of Mormon), it is also necessary to consider how the doctrine of Deity is presented in these scriptures when they are viewed in the chronological order in which they were anciently given (with the Lectures on Faith, Doctrine and Covenants, and Joseph’s famous sermon on the plurality of Gods, the “King Follett Discourse,” coming last, since they were first given in Joseph’s day). Since God cannot lie or contradict Himself, later revelation should be consistent with and not contradict what came earlier.
Viewed from this perspective, however, a perplexing pattern emerges, We are asked to believe that after revealing the doctrine of the plurality of Gods in Abraham’s time (2,000 B.C.), Heavenly Father later sent prophets beginning with Moses (1400/1300 B.C.) and through the end of the Book of Mormon period (A.D. 400) who taught monotheism, only to have Joseph Smith revert back to teaching the plurality of Gods in the nineteenth century.
Boyd Kirkland, “The Development of the Mormon Doctrine of God,” Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), pp. 35-36.
See Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” BYU Studies, Vol. IX, No. 3 (Spring 1969), pp. 275-294 and, by the same author, “How Lovely Was the Morning,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. VI, No. 1 (Spring 1971), pp. 85-88; also Paul R. Cheesman, “An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions,” M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965, Appendix D.
LadyWisdom wrote:My questions has always been,
Why does the BofM’s concept of God agrees with the Bible on the doctrine of God, yet conflicts with what Joseph said in later years and what was revealed in the Book of Abraham, which was supposed to be the most ancient scripture?Can you offer some insight into your exploration? Do you have an opinion to share or discuss? That would be helpful. Please post links, and go easy on the enormous blocks of copied text. Thanks.
Wow, so many questions! I’m planning on a post dealing with the origins of the Book of Abraham, and Richard Bushman’s treatment in Rough Stone Rolling. Currently, I’m in a hotel, and I am missing one of the books for the post, so it will be a few days. As for the evolution of the nature of God, have you read Rough Stone Rolling? Bushman seems to cover that topic pretty well. It does seem that Joseph was more trinitarian (as well as the BoM) originally, but due to the nature of revelation, more knowledge about God is known. I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising that the BoM reads like the Bible, but Joseph seems to have received new knowledge in the 1840’s that wasn’t available in the 1830’s. As such, the 1840’s revelations aren’t as closely aligned with biblical or BoM passages. Bushman seems to take the position that this is just an evolution because of new revelations taking precedence over previous ones.
Frankly, the whole issue hinges on whether or not someone thinks our scriptures actually teach monotheism, and I think none of our scriptures teach montheism in the classic sense. Of those we have, the Bible is the one that teaches polytheism the most openly and obviously, so I personally take the assertions of the authors with a HUGE grain of salt. I understand their reasoning, but I think they are ignoring more scriptures (especially from the Bible) than they are including in their analysis. Also, frankly, this is not relevant to the central issue of the validity of the Book of Moses and Abraham, as the earliest books of the Bible are the ones that teachy polytheism the most openly – which would mean that the PoGP also should teach polytheism, being from that same time period – with Joseph gradually understanding the difference between the messed up monotheism of his time and the more correct original view. That, at least, is one possible, legitimate intgerpretation.
The only insights I have was already shared, Valoel. My faith is alway evolving. I put the conflict with other standard works on my proverbial shelf for years and I do believe that the BofM are clearly monotheistic as evidenced by all the scriptures I shared, I do think like someone mentioned the whole Book of Abraham thing is a disaster and i also think that the bible is/or teaches a monotheistic view of God. The OT does talk about polytheism in the many stories because Israel often lost track of who God was and started to worship many gods, but all of these were condemned and were referred to by the Hebrew prophets as false deities such as Baal and others, ones worshiped for agriculture or fertility, etc. The only legit reference I know of that questions that there might be more than one God or a divine council of Gods is in Psalm 82 and I have an explanation for that I have researched out. Edited for clarity.
[moderated: off topic – Valoel] I apologize for being this blunt, but: That certainly is one interpretation, but, again, it is irrelevant to this particular thread. It is one possible reading out of many I have seen – and it depends entirely on the interpretor’s desire to read that meaning into it. As the writer says, the word is translated in multiple ways, and almost all of those translations would fit the context of those verses – literally, almost all of them. It is interesting to observe that every interpretation of those verses matches EXACTLY the theology of the person doing the interpreting. I’m fine with that (really), but it’s important to make that point.
One more time, the whole issue of mono/polytheism is irrelevant to this thread, since the PofGP and the OT passages dealing with it are quite consistent in how they deal with it. If someone rejects both, as you do, they are being consistent –
and I commend you for that. What I’m saying is that it’s not an issue of one not being in harmony with the other (or not being in harmony with the NT, in my opinion) – so let’s drop it on this thread, please. spacious maze asked: Quote:Are the books of Moses and Abraham being taught as truth? Are they included in lessons, missionary discussions, mormon views? Mentioned or taught at all? Or has the church sidelined and watered-down the importance of the Pearl of Great Price entirely, eventually leaving it behind? And do you believe it as true and divinely wrought as the Bible and Book of Mormon?
I think that both they are taught and yet as the same time dismissed at times. Bit and pieces are in lessons and in the LDS culture for sure, but they are not in missionary discussions or they certainly were not in mine, I had no real idea or heard of the PofGP when I was taught some 30 years ago. Based on what Pres.Hinckley said to Larry King, it does some of the PoGP is now sidelined somewhat, except much of the book of moses is the basis for and used in the temple endowment. Pres.Hinckley seemed to ashamed to admit that theosis was definitely part of the church’s teachings at one point and really still is. It is not in scripture, so much but was preached by JS, I already answered at least the BofA part, I certainly cannot not trust or put it on the same level as the other two.
[moderated: off topic – Valoel]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.