Book of Moses and Abraham

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

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.

Ok… I’m the ignorant one in the group… I’ve never heard this before… 😯

That’s pretty weird. I mean, look at how the Book of Mormon is written:

Quote:

Jacob Chapter 2

1 The words which Jacob, the brother of Nephi, spake unto the people of Nephi, after the death of Nephi:

2 Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God.

3 And ye yourselves know that I have hitherto been diligent in the office of my calling; but I this day am weighed down with much more desire and anxiety for the awelfare of your souls than I have hitherto been.

All the stuff written in 1st person seems so logical it would be a translation. If it was just all revealed by seer stones or whatever, wouldn’t that be more a description of what you’d see through a revelation, more written like this:

Quote:

1 Ne 1:18

Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

In other words, the Book of Mormon isn’t written as “I Joseph Smith saw the Nephite people…” but was written as if in the hand of Jacob, Nephi, Alma, etc etc etc, and in fact, Mormon and Moroni add their words.

This is puzzling to me that it really isn’t a translation. What are the sources that suggest it wasn’t done like it shows in the paintings?

[Anonymous]

Heber13, they really are so numerous as to be overwhelming if listed. Very little of the time was spent “translating” in the way that such a word conjurs images in our minds.

Frankly, the ever-shifting narrative voice is a strength in my mind regarding Joseph as not the author, as well as the constant shifting of time and location. It can be done with intense effort on a much more limited scale than in the Book of Mormon, but it’s practically impossible to do extemporaneously on the scale of the Book of Mormon – especially without having glaring gaps and mistakes and contradictions. Linguisticlly, that book is a marvelous work and a wonder – and most people don’t have a clue about many of the reasons why.

[Anonymous]

Well, there you go. I learned something new today. I wonder if it will change the way I look at the Book of Mormon as I read it from now on.

[Anonymous]

I hope it changes it for the better Heber. It has for me.

My doubts over the validity of the BoM are always dismissed when I consider what it would be like to sit down and try to write something comparable….WITHOUT a word processor/computer.

You can’t go back and edit, you need to come up with a few hundred new names for people and places, and you would have to remember everything you said as you were talking with your scribe.

Impossible IMHO. (and Joseph had about a 3rd grade education as I understand)

I think the Lord just chose a method that Joseph had faith in and had some understanding of. He, and many of his contemporaries, had been using seer stones in attempts to find things that were buried for awhile. I’m somewhat perplexed by those who have a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Ok… I’m the ignorant one in the group… I’ve never heard this before… 😯 …That’s pretty weird…This is puzzling to me that it really isn’t a translation. What are the sources that suggest it wasn’t done like it shows in the paintings?

Well, Heber, this is why in our conversations I have mentioned that having an understanding of church history is vital to the process. No offense.

As Ray said, the sources are numerous, and have been around for a long time. Bushman goes into it, although not in as much detail as I would have liked. But even Brodie brought this up in “No Man Knows My History.” And that’s been quite some time ago. During the “Camelot Years” in the 70’s under Arrington, and Allen, a lot of stuff came forward that had not been known or understood before. Brodie had access to it as she gained entrance to the vaults since she was Pres McKay’s niece (albeit somewhat dishonestly IMHO).

There are many other issues surrounding the Book of Mormon, visions, translations, etc. that have come forward that the bulk of church members don’t know about. This, for me, is what my deception post was all about a while back. Also, this is where I get my theories about Joseph being unreliable, and viewing the entire picture differently. I’m not saying that one way or the other is correct, or more accurate. There are still things that I think have not been well explained, like The Book of Mormon, in spite of all the conundrums surrounding it. I lean toward it being a 19th century text, that Joseph created himself. It may have been inspired, but I’m not sure I believe there was a translation from Gold Plates given to him by an angel. I could be wrong, and I’m open to that possibility. That’s just what I consider to be more likely after having examined many of the facts.

For those who have studied church history, and still have faith, I accept that, and don’t see anything wrong with it. There are still reasons to believe the standard church story, it’s just that the evidence for it is rather weak to me. I do think that members do themselves a disservice by not studying church history and understanding it to make an informed decision.

[Anonymous]

I understand people’s acceptance of Smith using physical things as means for revelation, but the introduction to the Book of Abraham is, “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. – The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

It does not go on to state, “…and what you are about to read has absolutely nothing to do with the content printed on these papyri”.

Why claim that the papyri was the actual hand-written account of Abraham? They are claiming a historical discovery, not a miracle. Are we to believe the “translation” but not Smith’s account of its source?

[Anonymous]

“Are we to believe the “translation” but not Smith’s account of its source?”

I do. I think Joseph believed that’s what it was, and I’m fine with that. As long as I can accept it as coming from God, that’s really the only source I care about it – and as I said earlier, I really love the theology laid out in it. I know that’s problematic for many, but I’m ok with it.

[Anonymous]

“It does not go on to state, “…and what you are about to read has absolutely nothing to do with the content printed on these papyri”. “

Well, if the papyri was indeed lost/burned in the Chicago fire…it could very well be that what was on those papyri was exactly what Joseph Smith translated…the writings of Abraham…. and we’re left with the remainders.

I’ve never seen anything to indicate that that isn’t the case.

Just sayin….

[Anonymous]

I agree with Bruce here. There is quite a bit of papyrus missing, and we shouldn’t think the the NY museum had everything. The descriptions Joseph gave indicated there was much more to the papyrus than the 11 scraps found in NY.

[Anonymous]

Bruce, MH:

But by the logic presented in the prior postings, why was it necessary at all for the papyri…since like the Gold Plates, they wouldn’t be used to bring that scripture forward?

Which of the following explanations do you see works best:

1) You need the papyrus to translate the words, and Smith was inadequate as a scholar to do this without God’s help but it was all based on the characters on the papyri augmented by the Spirit of Revelation; or

2) The Lord works in mysterious ways, and as Smith shows faith to follow God’s direction to find relics, then he is blessed to have words revealed to him which may or may not have anything to do with the papyrus; or

3) The papyrus helps Smith promote the scripture came from a legitimate source, but it is just a farce since the real revelations came through the spirit, and really the papyrus has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Well, I’m not at all sure that the gold plates and papyri weren’t used to bring the scripture forward. Maybe their presence was needed…I don’t know.

It seems that God has always been pretty big on keeping records and a written cannon of scripture for some reason. To use our 21st century logic He would save everyone a lot of trouble by just revealing things when needed. I sure don’t pretend to know why He chooses to do things that way.

I assume that if one can create universes than there is a reason for drama like burning bushes or gold plates.

my opinion only…

Edit:

Of course it all comes down to faith, gaining a personal spiritual witness, and all that other unprovable stuff. I guess I’m just saying that the common attacks on the BoM or the PoGP (or the Kinderhook plates for that mattter) don’t really hold water.

IMHO if a person can’t/won’t/doesn’t-want-to seek a personal confirmation than they won’t….and there will always be plenty of secular arguements to make him/her feel justified in doing that. I know I used those arguements for years and they certainly are the path of least resistance.

[Anonymous]

Heber, I don’t know which scenario is better. I think I like 1 and 2 more than 3, but I can’t rule out 3 either.

In light of the Gospel of Judas, and my simple understanding of Gnosticism, I wonder if this was actually a Gnostic text. Gnosis means “secret knowledge.” With the reference to “intelligences”, it does seem like a Gnostic text, IMO.

By the way, does anybody know if carbon dating has been done to date the papyrus?

[Anonymous]

I really think that Joseph Smith was very intelligent and had the capacity to bring forth all these works with the help he received (scribes). He was a grand storyteller from a young age according to his mother. I just read that his dad and brother were school teachers.

That said, I believe he was inspired. None of the dates and timings and numbers are accidental.

But, isn’t it entirely possible that all the stories of gold plates, angelic visits and papyrus are part of the myth? Is it possible that the gold plates buried in a hill are symbolic? If so, does that change the spiritual message of the Books? I don’t think so. Myths contain important (true) pointers for the people who use them to come closer to God.

[Anonymous]

Myths are fine if you identify them as such.

If you present a myth as factual…that’s called a lie, IMHO.

Angelic visits, gold plates, and papyri stories either happened or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then Joseph Smith was a liar as well as many witnesses. The idea that there is some middle ground where he could have presented these things as fact, and they weren’t, but that’s ok because they mean well and contain good lessons just doesn’t make sense.

I personally don’t understand those who, maybe because of their Mormon upbringing, can reduce the BoM to some sort of well-meant fairy tale.

Everyone is entitled to a spiritual witness of the truth of the BoM if they humble themselves properly and ask with real intent.

A real spriritual witness removes any questions as to the historicity of the record.

Sorry….I got on a bit of a rant.

My opinion only….

[Anonymous]

Bruce, you have every right to believe that those who have received a different spiritual witness from you are prideful, lack intent, etc.

I really think that myths are much, much more than “well meaning fairy tales.” Maybe myths are how God speaks to us. Didn’t Jesus teach in parables? Were those just well meaning fairy tales? I find that the spiritual/symbolic interpretaton far surpasses the literal rather than reducing it. Remember that Jesus veiled the true meaning of his teachings which means we have to go beyond the literal to actually get it.

We already know that Joseph Smith did tell lies. Since he did lie, doesn’t everyone have a responsibility to think (and pray) very critically of all that he produced?

I really, really hope I am not going too tangent here. If I am, I apologize.

[Author]

Posts