New essay on lds.org: The Book of Abraham

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Potential effects aside, I simply like the fact that the essays are honest and historically accurate. That is significant and ought to be celebrated, imo.

I think they could have done a much better job with this particular essay. I hate to focus on the negative, I’d rather hold the new essay as a positive step in the right direction. Even so I wouldn’t go as far as saying that this essay is very honest. Here I’m defining dishonesty as withholding key information, in some areas it feels intentional in order to bias the presentation. I understand that the church has it’s agenda and critics have theirs and this essay is only going to represent the church’s agenda. I understand why they chose to withhold information, they get to pick the battles they want to wage with the essay… and that’s why I can’t say that it’s very honest.

I might use this essay as a reference to bring up a point or two about topics related to the BoA but there’s no chance I’d ever send someone a link to the essay to explain the issues with the BoA. It’s incomplete and biased.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Potential effects aside, I simply like the fact that the essays are honest and historically accurate. That is significant and ought to be celebrated, imo.

I think they could have done a much better job with this particular essay. I hate to focus on the negative, I’d rather hold the new essay as a positive step in the right direction. Even so I wouldn’t go as far as saying that this essay is very honest. Here I’m defining dishonesty as withholding key information, in some areas it feels intentional in order to bias the presentation. I understand that the church has it’s agenda and critics have theirs and this essay is only going to represent the church’s agenda. I understand why they chose to withhold information, they get to pick the battles they want to wage with the essay… and that’s why I can’t say that it’s very honest.

I might use this essay as a reference to bring up a point or two about topics related to the BoA but there’s no chance I’d ever send someone a link to the essay to explain the issues with the BoA. It’s incomplete and biased.

What “key information” do you think the church is withholding, Nibbler?

[Anonymous]

Tempt me to the dark side of the force will you? Sigh…

#1) They focus on the BoA text as it relates to the recovered fragments but completely ignore the misinterpretations of the vignettes. That’s nowhere to be found in the essay.

#2) I felt the small section dedicated to the KEP didn’t go into enough detail. The KEP suggests that characters from the recovered fragments actually were the source of the BoA text.

#3) The BoA includes text that ties it to one of the vignettes and reinforces the misinterpretation of the vignette.

#4) No mention of similarities between The Philosophy of a Future State.

#5) No mention of lacunae reconstruction. A minor issue to be sure, but it was omitted from the essay.

#6) No exploration of the Jewish redactor theory… which could have helped their argument.

#7) etc., etc. I just don’t have the energy for the BoA anymore. I dedicated enough to it over the years. I’m on the other side. :wave:

Quote:

Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith’s possession exist today.

Quote:

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

That statement is very misleading IMO and it’s the one that sticks out the most. First of all it ignores the common argument that the KEP does tie specific characters found on the recovered fragments to text in the BoA. Second the estimates of the length of the missing scroll range anywhere from 41 feet to two feet. If the scroll was 41 feet then the recovered portions would represent “small fragments.” If the missing portion of the scroll represented two feet then the recovered portion represents “quite a lot.” It’s disingenuous to make this statement and only presenting the side that is favorable to their argument.

Quote:

On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world. Some of this knowledge, which is discussed later in this essay, had not yet been discovered or was not well known in 1842.

According to some scholars a lot of that information was available to Joseph. The Book of Jasher and The Antiquities of Freemasonry are ones that I’ve heard about.

Quote:

But even this evidence of ancient origins, substantial though it may be

The essay is full of these types of phrases. Phrases that only seek to lead the reader to a specific conclusion, phrases that do not to contribute actual information.

Quote:

Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.

It really feels like they are trying to say that Egyptologists could be wrong, that the papyri fragments really could be about Abraham after all. That’s not what they are saying but I think they could restructure the wording. Minor, minor point.

---

The essay throws a lot on the wall in hopes that some of it will stick. Joseph could have translated the BoA because most of the scroll is missing, but if it was the scroll it was just a catalyst and we misinterpret the word “translate.” An appeal to scholars is futile but here’s what scholars in our camp say about similarities in the BoA and what we now “know” about Abraham.

I’m no stranger to my perspective, I can take a step back and view it externally: Nibbler wouldn’t be satisfied with anything short of a statement telling members to rip the BoA out of their scriptures… so of course this essay isn’t going to satisfy him. Ok, that’s a little extreme . It does a very good job of helping a believing member doubt any doubts they may have but the above are the reasons I don’t think the essay does the issue justice. Of course I may feel this way because I’ve been mired in the issues. The essay is likely more than enough for the uninitiated. Remember: baby steps, baby steps.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Tempt me to the dark side of the force will you? Sigh…

#1) They focus on the BoA text as it relates to the recovered fragments but completely ignore the misinterpretations of the vignettes. That’s nowhere to be found in the essay.

#2) I felt the small section dedicated to the KEP didn’t go into enough detail. The KEP suggests that characters from the recovered fragments actually were the source of the BoA text.

#3) The BoA includes text that ties it to one of the vignettes and reinforces the misinterpretation of the vignette.

#4) No mention of similarities between The Philosophy of a Future State.

#5) No mention of lacunae reconstruction. A minor issue to be sure, but it was omitted from the essay.

#6) No exploration of the Jewish redactor theory… which could have helped their argument.

#7) etc., etc. I just don’t have the energy for the BoA anymore. I dedicated enough to it over the years. I’m on the other side. :wave:

Quote:

Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith’s possession exist today.

Quote:

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

That statement is very misleading IMO and it’s the one that sticks out the most. First of all it ignores the common argument that the KEP does tie specific characters found on the recovered fragments to text in the BoA. Second the estimates of the length of the missing scroll range anywhere from 41 feet to two feet. If the scroll was 41 feet then the recovered portions would represent “small fragments.” If the missing portion of the scroll represented two feet then the recovered portion represents “quite a lot.” It’s disingenuous to make this statement and only presenting the side that is favorable to their argument.

Quote:

On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world. Some of this knowledge, which is discussed later in this essay, had not yet been discovered or was not well known in 1842.

According to some scholars a lot of that information was available to Joseph. The Book of Jasher and The Antiquities of Freemasonry are ones that I’ve heard about.

Quote:

But even this evidence of ancient origins, substantial though it may be

The essay is full of these types of phrases. Phrases that only seek to lead the reader to a specific conclusion, phrases that do not to contribute actual information.

Quote:

Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.

It really feels like they are trying to say that Egyptologists could be wrong, that the papyri fragments really could be about Abraham after all. That’s not what they are saying but I think they could restructure the wording. Minor, minor point.

---

The essay throws a lot on the wall in hopes that some of it will stick. Joseph could have translated the BoA because most of the scroll is missing, but if it was the scroll it was just a catalyst and we misinterpret the word “translate.” An appeal to scholars is futile but here’s what scholars in our camp say about similarities in the BoA and what we now “know” about Abraham.

I’m no stranger to my perspective, I can take a step back and view it externally: Nibbler wouldn’t be satisfied with anything short of a statement telling members to rip the BoA out of their scriptures… so of course this essay isn’t going to satisfy him. Ok, that’s a little extreme . It does a very good job of helping a believing member doubt any doubts they may have but the above are the reasons I don’t think the essay does the issue justice. Of course I may feel this way because I’ve been mired in the issues. The essay is likely more than enough for the uninitiated. Remember: baby steps, baby steps.

I find the essay consistent with the correlation commits stated purpose though. You pointed out some of the problems with it is also the sane problems with the essay both the good and bad stays the same because the mission is still the same.

Quote:

The function of this Committee is to pass upon and approve all materials, other than those that are purely secular, to be used by our Church Priesthood, Educational, Auxiliary, and Missionary organizations in their work of instructing members of the Church in the principles of the Gospel and in leading others to a knowledge of the Truth. To meet such required standards for use by Church organizations, such materials must: (1) Clearly set forth or be fully consistent with the principles of the restored Gospel. (2) Be wholly free from any taint of sectarianism and also of all theories and conclusions destructive of faith in the simple truths of the Restored Gospel, and especially be free from the teachings of the so‑called “higher criticism.” Worldly knowledge and speculation have their place; but they must yield to revealed truth. (3) Be so framed and written as affirmatively to breed faith and not raise doubts. “Rationalizing” may be most destructive of faith. That the Finite cannot fully explain the Infinite casts no doubt upon the Infinite. Truth, not error, must be stressed. (4) Be so built in form and substance as to lead to definite conclusions that accord with the principles of the Restored Gospel which conclusions must be expressed and not left to possible deduction by the students. When truth is involved there is no place for student preference or choice. Youth must be taught that truth cannot be blinked or put aside, it must be accepted. (5) Be filled with a spirit of deepest reverence. They should give no place for the slightest levity. They should be so written that those who teach from and by them will so understand. (6) Be so organized and written that the matter may be effectively taught by men and women untrained in teaching without the background equipment given by such fields of learning as psychology, pedagogy, philosophy and ethics. The great bulk of our teachers are in the untrained group.

J. Reuben Clark, First Presidency’s 1944 letter on the Literature Censorship Committee

[Anonymous]

I just roll my eyes anymore when something like this comes from the church, because the simple answer still is Joseph made it up. To paint something as completely different than what it was originally believed to be is not helpful for the long term. Just like the essay on DNA no reputable scientist or scholar outside of the church would give the theories any consideration based on the evidence. It is just an attempt to muddy the waters enough so believers can put it back on the shelf.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I just roll my eyes anymore when something like this comes from the church, because the simple answer still is Joseph made it up. To paint something as completely different than what it was originally believed to be is not helpful for the long term. Just like the essay on DNA no reputable scientist or scholar outside of the church would give the theories any consideration based on the evidence. It is just an attempt to muddy the waters enough so believers can put it back on the shelf.

I’m glad you said this Cadence, because it was exactly what I was thinking. And I agree with Nibbler too. It took me this many days since the essay came out to post about it in a rational manner. If anyone other than JS had put this kind of information forward, no one would believe it. For me it requires mental/emotional gymnastics that would cause me to bend so far that I would break. It’s just more of the same that brought on my FC in the first place.

OK, letting it go again for now and moving on. 🙄

[Anonymous]

As mom3 said, for someone who has thrown out the BoA already, this essay won’t change a thing. I get that and have no problem with that – except to point out that there is absolutely no reason for the Church to publish an essay that would satisfy that group, nor should it do so. There also is no way to include every possible theory in a relatively short essay. (It’s like criticizing history textbooks used in schools for not being comprehensive and not including every perspective. That’s a fine ideal, and there are serious issues with most history textbooks used in schools, but a 20,000 page textbook covering the colonial days through the Civil War isn’t the answer.)

Also, it’s easy to let issues with the BoA itself leak into an analysis of the essay. It would be wonderful if the images were removed from the published book, for example, but their inclusion in the book doesn’t invalidate the essay, which actually did address that issue.

I’m not defending the BoA as a historical text, nor am I claiming it is an inspired revelation of something Abraham actually wrote – but I think this essay was about as comprehensive, open and accurate as it could be, given the widely varying views people have of the book, both inside and outside the LDS Church. I would have liked more time spent on the alternate interpretations, as well, but this is a far cry from what we have had in the past.

[Author]

Posts