- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Valoel wrote:
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 agree with all of this. Saved me some typing.
spacious maze wrote: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?
Everyone’s responses and the discussion on polytheism is all so interesting to me. I strongly believe polythiesm is consistently taught throughout all the scriptures with correct interpretations, but that is a subject for another thread. It is clearly the established mormon doctrine, and frankly, makes the most sense to me.
Going back to your original questions, though, I see no evidence the PoGP is being watered down, or left behind. It is still used in missionary discussions and seminary and gospel doctrine. They are part of the standard works.
It is good to learn a little more of the history and how they came about. I admit, I only slightly remember the stories of their origin, and am interested in reading more about them.
But your question about whether it is “divinely wrought” like the bible or BoM is interesting to me. Book of Mormon is unique in origin, as a translation from golden plates from an angel to Joseph (one of many ways God can work). What about the bible? What are the origins of the OT and how is that any more “divinely wrought” than the Books of Abraham or Moses? They are all collected and assembled as God’s word to His children because they contain bits and pieces of doctrine important for us to understand the nature of God and the purpose of our existence. There are important bits and pieces in the Pearl of Great Price that compliment and clarify the other scriptures, providing a “more correct” interpretation of the other scriptures. I guess I fall into the camp of being less hung up on the methods of origin, and more intently concerned with the knowledge and spirit provided in those words.
Wow, great replies. Really appreciate the insight. I actually just finished up “Rough Stone Rolling”, which has given birth to many more questions, and then i re-read the books of Moses and Abraham. I have to admit, pretty cool stuff. I don’t find the doctrine to be too conflicting. And yes, I see polytheism all over the Bible too, it’s not problematic for me since I tend to take all cannon as reprocessed through the imperfect mind of man. But this makes it hard for me to commit to the idea of a one true religion. An argument could be made that if the church were to ease off the literal interpretations, they could loose grip on the church as a large working organized entity. This is a bit off topic, but after bits of papyri were translated by egyptologists and found to be polytheistic funeral texts, the church had to alter its claims that the Book of Abraham wasn’t a direct translation. Include this with the fact that the golden plates were never actually used during translation, and that they were never literal seen by the witnesses, and you have to ask what importance do physical relics play in the church? Were they even necessary? Could Smith have received revelation without them around? How reliant are we on the facts of their physicality? Do we read the Book of Mormon, a physical written historical account, or are we reading a giant revelation to Smith? Did the restoration of the gospel come from the actual content in these physical sources, or by the sole fact that a miracle of revelation had occurred?
This is why the origins on the books of Moses and Abraham intrigue me. Why even mention papyri if its content isn’t applicable to the faith? I hope this makes sense to you guys. Thanks
Makes perfect sense and I’m guessing most of the people here on this forum are here because of all of those questions you raised. I think I’ve said this before in some thread, but I view Joseph as a visionary mystic – and I view the physical “translated” items as “props” or “prompts” for his visions / revelations. It’s a little complicated for me, since I can accept the BofM as an actual historical record (especially since I have believed in the Limited Geography Model from my fairly early childhood – long before I ever heard that term, since it is the only interpretation that makes sense to my parsing nature), while not believing the Books of Abraham and Moses to be the same. I believe Joseph thought he was actually “translating” (that he assumed the Book of Mormon model was the norm), and I am totally fine with that given how much I love the content of the PofGP. Ultimately, I don’t really care much about it, since I think he was sincere and because I just think what he produced is, as my children would say, abso-freaking-lutely awesome.
spacious maze wrote:you have to ask what importance do physical relics play in the church? Were they even necessary? Could Smith have received revelation without them around? How reliant are we on the facts of their physicality? Do we read the Book of Mormon, a physical written historical account, or are we reading a giant revelation to Smith? Did the restoration of the gospel come from the actual content in these physical sources, or by the sole fact that a miracle of revelation had occurred?
I think the relics were critical. The process that seemed to be consistent was that Joseph would have something that would initiate the revelatory process, but then once initiated, it was quite the mystical experience which becomes a matter of faith to believe that kind of process is how God works or it is is a psychotic experience.
My belief is that because Adam fell, God is separated from us and uses spiritual tools to talk with us and His prophets. It has always been that way and Joseph’s experiences don’t seem any less different than OT prophets or NT Apostles.
And yet, it is not “perfect”. Good example is the Book of Mormon including the word “adieu” – when the French language was not developed when the Golden Plates were claimed to be engraved. Joseph would have been subject to his influences and language and tools he had around him to translate not as a perfect learned man and scholar, but as the spirit dictated and his mind processed those spiritual things. He even claims on the title page if there are errors, they are errors of men, but the content itself was approved by God as getting across the words of Christ that would bring the readers closer to God. Not because it is a perfect translation, but that it is a spiritual translation.
I cannot believe Joseph just made the whole thing up by his genius or that a random psychotic event could create such an incredible piece of theological literature. The Book stands on its own while other forgeries and attempts at revelation have not. I think without the Book of Mormon and its ability to stand that scrutiny, I would be HIGHLY suspect of the Book of Abraham. But because the Book of Mormon, I can accept the Pearl of Great Price to the value it brings to me.
Ok, I just posted a long post on the Book of Abraham, and compared it to the Gospel of Judas. Check it out at http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/06/24/comparing-the-book-of-abraham-and-the-gospel-of-judas/ I talked a little about Gnosticism, which you may want to look into. Gnostics had beliefs similar to Mormon exaltation, (as well as some beliefs Mormons would find odd.) Anyway, if the Book of Abraham is a Gnostic book, that could explain some of the unusual theology there. Nonetheless, the Book of Abraham has some striking similarities to the Koran, as well as the Jewish Midrash. Bushman documents these, which could lend some credibility to his translation/revelatory abilities.
Ya, I remember the National Geographic story pretty well. And I’m aware of Gnostic texts, the Book of Watchers(Enoch) is one, right? Interesting theory. Though the Muslim connection is new to me. There’s still the thought of the actual papyri; if Smith used it to translate cannon don’t mormons have a right to see the literal translation of the funeral text too, so as to compare? Its just weird that the one actual relic we find turns out to be a primer for translation whilst the actual plates, not found, were, of course, a literal translation. I think the church would benefit by taking a stance on all the translations as being symbolic. They would then be held to interpretive scrutiny rather than embarrassing moments of faltering historicity. By the way, thanks for the link to your blog, MormonHeretic
Correct me if I’m having a senior moment but it’s my understanding that the papyri that the Church has is not the papyri that Joseph Smith translated. I was under the impression that several of them ended up in a Chicago museum and were burned in a fire there. I guess I should have looked for a link prior to posting but I think I got that off of Jeff Lindsay’s site. Edit:
Ok, here it is…
To briefly answer the questions, Bushman goes into quite a bit of detail that some (not all) of the scrolls were found in the basement of the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It is certainly possible that some could have burned in the Chicago fire. Some of the ones in NY match some of the facsimiles in the PoGP, so there is evidence of similarity. Bushman notes that what was found in NY is not nearly as complete as what was mentioned by Joseph Smith. The Gospel of Judas is so interesting to me because of a case of mistaken translation, just as could have happened with the Book of Abraham. Spacious Maze, Bushman makes it pretty clear that the Book of Mormon was not a literal translation either. There are times when Joseph only looked at the seer stone, and not at the plates. I don’t expect this as common knowledge among Mormons at church, but “translation” is probably an inaccurate word to describe the method for obtaining these scriptures. The Book of Mormon and Abraham seem more revelatory, than actually character by character translation that we would normally expect.
Old-Timer wrote: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’m with Ray, although I would probably phrase it differently. I like the messages, although Abrahamic star/planet stuff is a bit weird, and I appreciate Moses clarification on parts of Genesis. But, no, I don’t accept them as literal translations, or even visions from God. But then again, I also don’t accept the BoM as historical and translated (although I remain open to the possibility). But I do think they are all inspired. But so are “The Power of Myth,” “The Shack,” “Works of Love,” “Quran,” etc.mormonheretic wrote:Spacious Maze, Bushman makes it pretty clear that the Book of Mormon was not a literal translation either. There are times when Joseph only looked at the seer stone, and not at the plates.
Actually, it would appear that he rarely looked at the plates (if ever) according to Bushman (I just finished that section in RSR). The plates weren’t necessary in a literal translation sense (maybe they were for other reasons, I dunno). There are accounts of the translation going on while the plates were in a box buried in a barn out back.
mormonheretic wrote:I don’t expect this as common knowledge among Mormons at church, but “translation” is probably an inaccurate word to describe the method for obtaining these scriptures. The Book of Mormon and Abraham seem more revelatory, than actually character by character translation that we would normally expect.
Yes, and this is one thing Bushman harps on. “Translation” is most definitely an inaccurate word when we’re talking about translation from one textual medium to another textual medium, especially in the colloquial sense. Maybe the Brethren just think it’s too late in the game to change that now. I dunno.Well, Joseph Smith used the term “translate”. I would think that if he had used a term like “transpose” that we would still use that term as well for tradition, if nothing else. He used the word “interpretors” quite a bit as well. IMHO it would be beneficial if those old paintings of Joseph “reading” the plates and Oliver acting as scribe would go away. That leads to a false idea of how things happened and can cause members a lot of doubt when they find out different.
I also don’t have any problem believing that the BoM that we received is an exact translation of the record on the plates…just put in Joseph Smith’s words. (and the book he was most familiar with was the KJV Bible) Why did he need the plates present if he wasn’t going to look at them while “translating”? I don’t know. Why did the Lord cause the plates to be hid up in the first place? I don’t know. He certainly could have just revealed the record through revelation and not bothered with the plates in the first place.
Come to think of it, why did He require Moses to climb that silly mountain for the 10 Commandments? He could have just revealed them to him where he was.
I submit that the Lord uses some pretty dramatic stuff sometimes to impress those He is dealing with at the time.
As soon as He asks my opinion on this kind of stuff, I’ll straighten Him out.
😆 Quote:Come to think of it, why did He require Moses to climb that silly mountain for the 10 Commandments?
Well, I guess if Moses found God in the cellar it would seem a lot less inspiring as a story!
I like “transmitted through” much more than “translated by” – even if it was a translation in the sense of getting the message across in language he understood and that would have made sense to those who read it. I have to laugh – and I mean really laugh – at those who complain about the wording of the Book of Mormon (that it’s too much like what the people of the time spoke) while tripping all over themselves to use non-KJV translations of the BIble because that version is too hard to understand. It’s totally fine to translate the Bible into words and phrases that teenagers now will understand, but it’s not OK for Jospeh to use words the readers of his time would understand?!?!
If people hundreds of years from now could access only the most modern versions of the Bible, they would reject it out-of-hand as being a “product of its time” – exactly as so many people reject the Book of Mormon for that reason.I just have to laugh, since it really is a comical argument to make from within Christianity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.