- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Before we throw Joseph under the bus completely, I think it is wise to consider Bart Ehrmann’s advice: Don’t believe everything you see on the internet. I’ve always found the story of Abraham destroying his father’s idols very interesting. Mormons are familiar with the story from the Book of Abraham, but similar stories are also found in the Jewish Midrash, and Muslim Koran. (The Midrash is a book composed by ancient Jewish rabbis to explain passages of scripture.) Not only does the Midrash explain interpretations of scripture, but often further explains stories, or introduces new parts of a story. The Koran also tells of this story of Abraham destroying his father’s idols. Previously, I speculated on my blog that Joseph could have found a Muslim text in translating the Book of Abraham, but it easily could also have been a Jewish fragment of the Midrash as well.
Perhaps the rest of the scroll will be found in the future, and Nibley’s theory could be vindicated. I’m sure it’s not a popular scenario here, but I’m just saying that some of you might want to keep an open mind to that possibility.
mormonheretic wrote:Perhaps the rest of the scroll will be found in the future, and Nibley’s theory could be vindicated. I’m sure it’s not a popular scenario here, but I’m just saying that some of you might want to keep an open mind to that possibility.
I agree completely, if I am to learn from my(many) mistakes of the past, I need to keep an open mind. Good point mormonheretic.
f4h1
Just wanted to add really quick that we already have openly acknowledged precedence for channeled scripture in LDS canon — the Book of Moses. We often overlook this part of the PoGP because of the huge controversy surrounding the BoA. The Book of Moses was a channeled work (a revelation) based on Joseph Smith reading Genesis — seeing the “real” story that was lost over the ages (very similar to Jewish Midrash, as MormonHeretic already mentioned).
Revelation is the openly acknowledged explanation and source of this writing. There isn’t even the slightest attempt to claim it is based on some translation of a physical document. So based on the historical information available, it isn’t really an unprecedented stretch to view other works created by Joseph in a similar light.
mormonheretic wrote:Before we throw Joseph under the bus completely, I think it is wise to consider Bart Ehrmann’s advice:
Don’t believe everything you see on the internet…Perhaps the rest of the scroll will be found in the future, and Nibley’s theory could be vindicated. I’m sure it’s not a popular scenario here, but I’m just saying that some of you might want to keep an open mind to that possibility. Brian Johnston wrote:Just wanted to add really quick that we already have openly acknowledged precedence for channeled scripture in LDS canon — the Book of Moses. We often overlook this part of the PoGP because of the huge controversy surrounding the BoA.
…Revelation is the openly acknowledged explanation and source of this writing. There isn’t even the slightest attempt to claim it is based on some translation of a physical document. So based on the historical information available,
it isn’t really an unprecedented stretch to view other works created by Joseph in a similar light.The problem is that with the Book of Moses it seems like it was understood to be a direct revelation all along but with the Book of Abraham Joseph Smith acted like it was supposed to be a translation of these Egyptian records. As if that wasn’t enough we have some “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” documents in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps and other Church members showing side-by-side text from the “Book of Breathings” and the Book of Abraham as if they thought this was supposed to be a direct translation.
That’s why I just don’t see how the channeling or missing scroll theories fit very well with some of the evidence that we have. Also, this definitely doesn’t look like it’s just some made-up “anti-Mormon” lie or hearsay on the internet because Hugh Nibley and other Mormon apologists have already conceded that this evidence that doesn’t really support the Church’s claims definitely exists even though they desperately try to explain away all these problems at the same time because as far as they’re concerned there is only one acceptable answer that the Church is still “true” no matter what. If you don’t believe me, see what FAIR has to say about it and judge for yourself.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:The problem is that with the Book of Moses it seems like it was understood to be a direct revelation all along but with the Book of Abraham Joseph Smith acted like it was supposed to be a translation of these Egyptian records. As if that wasn’t enough we have some “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” documents in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps and other Church members showing side-by-side text from the “Book of Breathings” and the Book of Abraham as if they thought this was supposed to be a direct translation.
That’s why I just don’t see how the channeling or missing scroll theories fit very well with some of the evidence that we have.I’m not sure why the existence of Joseph et al believing they could literally translate Egyptian text nullifies the channeling theory. I don’t personally subscribe to the a missing scroll / literal translation theory on any level, so I can’t defend that one.
Just to be clear, when I call it “channeling,” I don’t mean that Joseph received language translation OR had any direct psychic connection to a literal history of Abraham. I am using it in a literary/academic sense, describing a style of writing.
To me, the issue that gives most of us heartburn is the later explanation of the writing, that it was taught and presented as a translation of the documents. What I think is that it was first and foremost a “channeled” mythological work. They believed it was a translation of the scrolls, so they subsequently went about trying to match the English language “revelation” (like the Book of Moses) to the Egyptian characters. This was destined to fail. But that later assumption by them isn’t the writing. It’s an assumption about the revelation. I think the writings should stand (or fall) on their own as religious mythology, regardless of the mechanics.
The story
OFthe Book of Abraham to me is one thing. The story INthe Book of Abraham is another. I choose to deal with them in their own worlds. It doesn’t lead me back to a literal belief in either story, but it puts me at ease with the existence of both. They just are what they are.
Brian Johnston wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:The problem is that with the Book of Moses it seems like it was understood to be a direct revelation all along but with the Book of Abraham Joseph Smith acted like it was supposed to be a translation of these Egyptian records. As if that wasn’t enough we have some “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” documents in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps and other Church members showing side-by-side text from the “Book of Breathings” and the Book of Abraham as if they thought this was supposed to be a direct translation…
That’s why I just don’t see how the channeling or missing scroll theories fit very well with some of the evidence that we have.I’m not sure why the existence of Joseph et al believing they could literally translate Egyptian text nullifies the channeling theory.I don’t personally subscribe to the a missing scroll / literal translation theory on any level, so I can’t defend that one…Just to be clear, when I call it “channeling,” I don’t mean that Joseph received language translation OR had any direct psychic connection to a literal history of Abraham.I am using it in a literary/academic sense, describing a style of writing. To me, the issue that gives most of us heartburn is the later explanation of the writing, that
it was taught and presented as a translation of the documents.What I think is that it was first and foremost a “channeled” mythological work. They believed it was a translation of the scrolls, so they subsequently went about trying to match the English language “revelation” (like the Book of Moses) to the Egyptian characters. This was destined to fail. But that later assumption by them isn’t the writing. It’s an assumption about the revelation. I think the writings should stand (or fall) on their own as religious mythology, regardless of the mechanics.I understand the idea that Joseph Smith could have possibly “channeled” this story from somewhere independent of the Egyptian records. However, even if we assume that this was the case then why did he tell people this “revelation” was a translation of these Egyptian records he was showing people? The main explanations I can think of are simply that either he lied about it or he was mistaken for whatever reason (overactive imagination?). It seems to me that if this revelation was really important enough that God would expect us to believe in it as inspired scripture as part of Joseph Smith’s legacy as the “prophet of the restoration” then it seems like God should have also revealed to JS that it was not a literal translation of these records and that he should not tell people that it was. That’s why the channeling theory wouldn’t really help much as far as trying to maintain a relatively orthodox TBM perspective in my opinion.
I’m perfectly open to the idea of channeling, ESP, precognition, etc. in general. For example, Emmanuel Swedenborg reportedly had a remote vision of a fire in Stockholm that actually happened exactly the way he saw it. Edgar Cayce supposedly accurately diagnosed many illnesses and cures through “psychic” readings while in a hypnotic trance. These are the kinds of things I would consider to be a useful or inspired message to “channel” from wherever they come from. However, I don’t see how thinking some stories about the sun borrowing its light from Kolob and explaining exactly how the “curse” of Cain was supposedly transmitted to people after the flood is really that much better if it was channeled than if Joseph Smith just made it all up because even if we ignore the origins and just look at the contents of the book it just doesn’t appear to be remotely accurate and yet it doesn’t look like it was really intended to be some kind of symbolic allegory either.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:It seems to me that if this revelation was really important enough that God would expect us to believe in it as inspired scripture as part of Joseph Smith’s legacy as the “prophet of the restoration” then it seems like God should have also revealed to JS that it was not a literal translation of these records and that he should not tell people that it was.
Its a good thing we don’t have the golden plates to scrutinize, I wonder how accurate the farm boy’s translation really was.
But what if God is not concerned with whether we call it a translation or more the revelation like the Book of Moses. We should be learning the principles taught, right? Maybe it helps some people believe they are literal translations from artifacts, but eventually everyone has to learn the “where they came from” is not the point, even if a prophet thought it was important or was bold enough to speak without being led by the spirit. Is that not reasonable?
I see your point, though DA. It is hard to grasp claims made by prophets and the church could be incorrect when we’re trying to have faith in them as a source of truth. But maybe those two sources are only given “revelation” about certain gospel principles…and the other stuff (where it comes from, geography, facts, if language translations are correct) are all just mortals trying to take a stab at the meaning behind things, for which God is not concerned about or perhaps enjoys keeping the unimportant details mysterious so we stay interested.
I have no problem with Joseph believing he literally was “translating” but actually was “channeling” on an intellectual level, largely because of my study of other prophetic figures throughout history. “Accurate” or not, that theme is fairly common. mormonheretic wrote:Before we throw Joseph under the bus completely, I think it is wise to consider Bart Ehrmann’s advice:
Don’t believe everything you see on the internet. I’ve always found the story of Abraham destroying his father’s idols very interesting. Mormons are familiar with the story from the Book of Abraham, but similar stories are also found in the Jewish Midrash, and Muslim Koran. (The Midrash is a book composed by ancient Jewish rabbis to explain passages of scripture.) Not only does the Midrash explain interpretations of scripture, but often further explains stories, or introduces new parts of a story. The Koran also tells of this story of Abraham destroying his father’s idols. Previously, I speculated on my blog that Joseph could have found a Muslim text in translating the Book of Abraham, but it easily could also have been a Jewish fragment of the Midrash as well.
Perhaps the rest of the scroll will be found in the future, and Nibley’s theory could be vindicated. I’m sure it’s not a popular scenario here, but I’m just saying that some of you might want to keep an open mind to that possibility.
This is interesting, but I still really feel the BoA is the smoking gun. I’d rather he channelled it, like the Book of Moses. The Egyptological evidence is damning in the extreme, and can’t be brushed aside.
I have to say that while I do have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, the BoA does absolutely nothing for me.
What’s really amazing about it (other than the horrible curse of Ham business) is that it’s polytheistic.
Quote:[quote=”SamBee This is interesting, but I still really feel the BoA is the smoking gun. I’d rather he channelled it, like the Book of Moses. The Egyptological evidence is damning in the extreme, and can’t be brushed aside.
SamBee, can I quote you on that? Oh ya I just did.
I knew of some of the “things we don’t talk about” at church, before I saw the documentary, “The Lost Book of Abraham,” but this is the one that shot me through the heart. I don’t think many of the members that try to “spin” it or apologize it have watched it carefully as I have many times.
I agree with you 100% that
“The Egyptological evidence is damning in the extreme, and can’t be bruched aside.”F4h1
IF . . . the only way to judge it as an accurate historical translation, I agree. It’s just not the only option, imo – but we’ve discussed that already. 
Lots of speculation and mind bending gymnastics to try and explain the discrepancies. What do we know for sure 1. Joseph claimed it was a direct translation from the scrolls
2. The recovered scrolls do not support that in any way.
The obvious and most accurate conclusion is it was all a fabrication on the part of Joseph or others. Remember the simplest conclusion is generally the most correct. This is the problem we get into we we have a conclusion we like and then try and find evidence or ideas to support it, it is a classic case of confirmation bias. In this case it is rather obvious by the evidence we have what happened. Is this conclusion iron clad of course not. There certainly could be a divine aspect to this but to assume this in light of the evidence is a stretch. IMHO you must live with the facts as they are until new information comes along to alter or enhance your conclusion.
I know it is a hard thing sometimes to give up on something that you want or need to be true. Something that all your experiences lead you to believe. Unfortunately believing does not make it so.
Quote:The obvious and most accurate conclusion is it was all a fabrication on the part of Joseph or others. Remember the simplest conclusion is generally the most correct.
I understand that, but the operative word is “generally” – and there are many cases where the simplest conclusion is not the most correct. That makes me ok with concluding what I want to conclude, as long as it is reasonable – and “channeling” really is reasonable to me, especially given how much of that has occurred all throughout history with “visionary” leaders.
Seriously, in reference to Occam’s razor, I’ve been burned (or cut) enough by that rule in the past – both with others’ view of me and with my view of others – to believe it works the majority of the time but not even close to how often most people think
**when it involves humans and not just scientific experiments**.F4H1 (trying to think how to abbreviate you 😆 ), I notice that the BoA is being sidelined to an extent, and doesn’t appear in manuals as much as it used to. On the other hand, I’m reading “Earth in the Beginning” by Skousen, which refers to it regularly albeit in an interesting manner.My view is that the BoA should really be quietly put to one side, much like the curse of Ham, and polygamy.
SamBee wrote:My view is that the BoA should really be quietly put to one side, much like the curse of Ham, and polygamy.
I kind of agree, but is that reasonably possible to do though? After all, isn’t most of the temple ceremony based on the “assumptions” from the PoGP? Can the Mormon religion really wash their hands from these teachings and their origins, especially when they place SO MUCH emphasis on temple attendance as the only pathway to the CK?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.