Changing ordinances

[CardiacCoug]

The Book of Moses is my favorite book in the PofGP. If Joseph could be inspired to produce all of that merely by working on an inspired translation of the Bible, then to me it's not a stretch that he wasn't looking at the plates continuously while translating them. After all, when you're doing something by the gift and power of God a lot is possible.

The "translation" of the Bible is a great example of what the process of translation really was to Joseph, right? It's not translation, it's direct revelation/inspiration.

He wasn't going to original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to "translate" (which took 50+ translators 7 years to produce the KJV) He's having it put straight into his brain. So the JST Bible is a great example of what "translation" meant to Joseph.

[LA Ute]

Why does Professor Givens say the fact of it is important?

It's a long chapter and I'm limited to my Droid. So I'll beg off for now. But I'll try to add more later.

Pellegrino, I was just making an observation that I (and others) have made elsewhere. I admit to being confused about the papyri but I need to learn a lot more about them before I have an opinion.

[LA Ute]

The "translation" of the Bible is a great example of what the process of translation really was to Joseph, right? It's not translation, it's direct revelation/inspiration.

He wasn't going to original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to "translate" (which took 50+ translators 7 years to produce the KJV) He's having it put straight into his brain. So the JST Bible is a great example of what "translation" meant to Joseph.

I agree largely. My opinion is that the process combined both methods. There is evidence, e.g., that at least some of what Joseph dictated to his scribes is exactly what was written on the plates.

EDIT: A nice thought on this by someone you know a little about:

An example of what I am talking about is the recent discovery of the papyrus scrolls from which Joseph Smith was presumed to have translated the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Modern scholars, looking at the scrolls, found nothing they considered to be similar to that book. I remarked at the time that such a finding didn't bother me in the least. God doesn't need a crib sheet in the form of a papyrus scroll to reveal Abraham's thoughts and words to Joseph Smith, with any degree of precision He considers necessary for His purposes. If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose.

—Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, p. 46

[LA Ute]

Why does Professor Givens say the fact of it is important?

...looking at the Book of Mormon in terms of its early uses and reception, it becomes clear that this American scripture has exerted influence within the church and reaction outside the church not primarily by virtue of its substance, but rather its manner of appearing, not on the merits of what is says, but what it enacts. Put slightly differently, the history of the Book of Mormon's place in Mormonism and American religion generally has always been more connected to its status as signifier than signified, or its role as a sacred sign rather than its function as persuasive theology. The Book of Mormon is preeminently a concrete manifestation of sacred utterance, and thus an evidence of divine presence, before it is a repository of theological claims.

That's near the beginning of the entire Chapter Three, "'A Marvelous Work and a Wonder': The Book of Mormon as Sacred Sign," in which he introduces this theme, which he develops thoroughly in all the later chapters. (The quote is from location 874 in the Kindle version.)

[UtahDan]

That's near the beginning of the entire Chapter Three, "'A Marvelous Work and a Wonder': The Book of Mormon as Sacred Sign," in which he introduces this theme, which he develops thoroughly in all the later chapters. (The quote is from location 874 in the Kindle version.)

That is an interesting idea, and I do think Givens is worthy of taking seriously from what I have read of him. From your read of the rest of the chapter, is he talking about the translated, printed book or the plates themselves?

[UtahDan]

EDIT: A nice thought on this by someone you know a little about:

—Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, p. 46

The problem with this line of thought is the same one I was highlighting to Jeff re: BOM translation. That God could reveal things any way He wants to is easy ground to defend. The assertion that God could have used Egyptian funerary scrolls to inspire Joseph to receive a revelation ala the Book or Moses (or even that Joseph is just inspired to ask because of them as Eyring suggests) is tough to attack of itself. The problem is that it just doesn't square with what Joseph said about them. Here is a little clip from the Wiki article (footnotes are to History of the Church and a book by John Gee of FARMS):

After examining the scrolls, Smith, Joseph Coe and Simeon Andrews purchased the four mummies and at least five papyrus documents for $2,400.[5] Smith stated:

... with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. — a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.[4]

Joseph Smith ostensibly translated the majority of the Book of Abraham text in July and a few days in November 1835 and did some minor revisions in March 1842.[6] By October, he had also begun "...translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."[7]

I'm not sure it gets any better than to say Joseph was mistaken, even though what he got was inspired.

[LA Ute]

That is an interesting idea, and I do think Givens is worthy of taking seriously from what I have read of him. From your read of the rest of the chapter, is he talking about the translated, printed book or the plates themselves?

He's talking about the translated, printed book. He claims that the fact of its existence and the claims made about its origin are as important than the book's teachings (if not more important). I think he is pretty persuasive.

As for the Book of Abraham scrolls, I am not sure what to make of the concerns expressed by others here. I need to learn more about the whole subject. My bias, as everyone here who knows me knows, is that I have such a powerful testimony (belief, for those who prefer that word) of the Book of Mormon and the PofGP that I look at the questions people have raised about both with a believing eye (as I know almost everyone who posts here does). I don't need to have every question answered. I know others need to have them answered - or at least more of them than I do. I get that and see the various approaches to such matters as entirely individual things.

That doesn't mean (as you know) that I think reason is unimportant. It's critically important, as I don't believe faith can exist without reason. So for example, I understand that Joseph had many more scrolls than the fragments discovered in 1966. What role did the full complement of scrolls have in the overall scheme of translation? No one knows, and Joseph didn't say much about it all, as far as I know. I personally don't feel a need to know.

Beyond that, the BofM, as Givens says, is there as a fact to be dealt with. However Joseph translated the book, it is there, and all the known evidence is that is was dictated to scribes, without revision, over a 39-40 day period, by a 24 year-old with a 3rd grade education whose wife said could hardly construct a coherent written English sentence at the time. What is more (and the essence of the matter, for me) there is Moroni 10:4-5, which basically says, "Look, this is a spiritual book given to the world by God, and he'll tell you if it is true."

In short, in my mind if Joseph later sinned or otherwise messed up, or if Brigham had his faults, etc., there's still the fact of this book, the primary important of which, as Givens says, is to stand as a proof (using the term in its logical sense, not a courtroom sense) of Joseph's divine calling. That's leg #2 in the message of the church to the world. (#1 being the divine sonship of Jesus Christ, and #3 being the divinity of the Church today). My own testimony goes well beyond whether Joseph Smith lived a perfect life or whether every detail of his story is known or is even understandable.

Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble. I am just explaining why I believe and what makes my testimony tick. I do not mean to preach, either. I know there are multiple ways to respond to Joseph Smith's message and mission and a zillion ways of looking at the church. This is just mine.

Happy New Year! (I just passed through Cedar City last night and was thinking of dropping by ER's emergency room and creating a ruckus, but I thought better of that. Could get complicated.)

[ERCougar]

He's talking about the translated, printed book. He claims that the fact of its existence and the claims made about its origin are as important than the book's teachings (if not more important). I think he is pretty persuasive.

As for the Book of Abraham scrolls, I am not sure what to make of the concerns expressed by others here. I need to learn more about the whole subject. My bias, as everyone here who knows me knows, is that I have such a powerful testimony (belief, for those who prefer that word) of the Book of Mormon and the PofGP that I look at the questions people have raised about both with a believing eye (as I know almost everyone who posts here does). I don't need to have every question answered. I know others need to have them answered - or at least more of them than I do. I get that and see the various approaches to such matters as entirely individual things.

That doesn't mean (as you know) that I think reason is unimportant. It's critically important, as I don't believe faith can exist without reason. So for example, I understand that Joseph had many more scrolls than the fragments discovered in 1966. What role did the full complement of scrolls have in the overall scheme of translation? No one knows, and Joseph didn't say much about it all, as far as I know. I personally don't feel a need to know.

Beyond that, the BofM, as Givens says, is there as a fact to be dealt with. However Joseph translated the book, it is there, and all the known evidence is that is was dictated to scribes, without revision, over a 39-40 day period, by a 24 year-old with a 3rd grade education whose wife said could hardly construct a coherent written English sentence at the time. What is more (and the essence of the matter, for me) there is Moroni 10:4-5, which basically says, "Look, this is a spiritual book given to the world by God, and he'll tell you if it is true."

In short, in my mind if Joseph later sinned or otherwise messed up, or if Brigham had his faults, etc., there's still the fact of this book, the primary important of which, as Givens says, is to stand as a proof (using the term in its logical sense, not a courtroom sense) of Joseph's divine calling. That's leg #2 in the message of the church to the world. (#1 being the divine sonship of Jesus Christ, and #3 being the divinity of the Church today). My own testimony goes well beyond whether Joseph Smith lived a perfect life or whether every detail of his story is known or is even understandable.

Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble. I am just explaining why I believe and what makes my testimony tick. I do not mean to preach, either. I know there are multiple ways to respond to Joseph Smith's message and mission and a zillion ways of looking at the church. This is just mine.

Happy New Year! (I just passed through Cedar City last night and was thinking of dropping by ER's emergency room and creating a ruckus, but I thought better of that. Could get complicated.)

You should have. I was there, celebrating in style, even if we lacked the martinellis and board games. Actually, I think it was more like someone looking at the clock and saying'hey, it's 1205¡'

[Rosebud]

The Book of Moses is my favorite book in the PofGP. If Joseph could be inspired to produce all of that merely by working on an inspired translation of the Bible, then to me it's not a stretch that he wasn't looking at the plates continuously while translating them. After all, when you're doing something by the gift and power of God a lot is possible.

Another option is that JS had access to a lot more than an inspired translation of the Bible. From a very interesting article that received the 1995 Mormon History Association's annual best article in Mormon studies award:

Through his associations with ceremonial magic as a young treasure seer, Smith contacted symbols and lore taken directly from Kabbalah. In his prophetic translation of sacred writ, his hermeneutic method was in nature Kabbalistic. With his initiation into Masonry, he entered a tradition born of the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. These associations culminated in Nauvoo, the period of his most important doctrinal and ritual innovations. During these last years, he enjoyed friendship with a European Jew well-versed in the standard Kabbalistic works and possibly possessing in Nauvoo an extraordinary collection of Kabbalistic books and manuscripts. By 1844 Smith not only was cognizant of Kabbalah, but enlisted theosophic concepts taken directly from its principal text in his most important doctrinal sermon, the "King Follett Discourse."

[Brian]

went to temple today w/ Briana. When did they take out all the standing up?

[wuapinmon]

went to temple today w/ Briana. When did they take out all the standing up?

That sounds like a regional variation.

[pellegrino]

went to temple today w/ Briana. When did they take out all the standing up?

January 2008

[LA Ute]

Another option is that JS had access to a lot more than an inspired translation of the Bible. From a very interesting article that received the 1995 Mormon History Association's annual best article in Mormon studies award:

Interesting indeed. I was really referring to the fact that he had no documents or plates or anything of that sort that produced the Book of Moses. It was all inspiration.

During these last years, he enjoyed friendship with a European Jew well-versed in the standard Kabbalistic works and possibly possessing in Nauvoo an extraordinary collection of Kabbalistic books and manuscripts.

I had to smile at that one. Anyway, it is pretty well acknowledged that Joseph was pretty much like a sponge in those last years, soaking up learning everywhere he could. Skeptics will say that's how he made stuff up out of whole cloth; believers will say it was all just part of the making of a prophet (the "rough stone rolling" process).

[TexTechCoug]

As for the Book of Abraham scrolls, I am not sure what to make of the concerns expressed by others here. I need to learn more about the whole subject. My bias, as everyone here who knows me knows, is that I have such a powerful testimony (belief, for those who prefer that word) of the Book of Mormon and the PofGP that I look at the questions people have raised about both with a believing eye (as I know almost everyone who posts here does). I don't need to have every question answered. I know others need to have them answered - or at least more of them than I do. I get that and see the various approaches to such matters as entirely individual things.

In questions of religion I fall into the same general category as LA Ute. Additionally, I think that whatever way you lean, non-believer or believer, your bias will paint your interpretation of the information. If you believe Joseph Smith was inspired you'll pretty much accept that he could do it however he wanted, on the contrary if you believe him to be a charlatan with his head in a hat, that is what you will find.

Our biases so heavily paint our perception of events that objectivity becomes extremely difficult. Even those who act as historians, or those who recorded the history as it was made, are heavily subject to their own biases.

Like LA Ute, I believe Joseph Smith was inspired. I certainly would like to be more familiar with how he received the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price, but in the end I will accept that, regardless of the method, he was inspired.