NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority

[Northwestcoug]

Adding to JP's speculation.
It's worth mentioning that the PoGP was not cannonized until 1880 - that's somewhat "late in the game". However, the problem with removing the facsimilies from the BofA is that some of the explanations or teachings are part of the BofA. And the problem with removing the entire BofA from cannon is that some of those teachings are part of temple worship.

But I do agree with removing the facsimilies from the BofA. I wonder if the First Presidency would go so far as to produce a forward/introduction that states the BofA as revelation and distance the BofA from direct translation. That could prove troublesome but could justify the removal of the facsimilies.

Unfortunately, the fascimiles go hand in hand with the text of the POGP. So the only way to try to save face with a faithful interpretation is to use the 'revelatory vehicle' explanation. Just like the golden plates, JS needed a tangible object to get the revelatory gears going. And he went too far with his own mind translating the fascimiles, which was obviously an incorrect translation.

It's a super thin tightrope to even try to walk, and that's why the church hasn't renounced the fascimiles. I understand that they don't want to damage faith in the man that has been honored for so long, but they are still being dishonest.

[wuapinmon]

I can bear witness to this! But I'd broaden your time frame. How do you know it's changed?

I wasn't specific enough. I don't know that it has changed. My experiences with it, on both sides of the equation, both then, and looking back, have me believe that it was a great program full of sincere expressions of people believing the folklore that they had heard or even invented. I'm sure that I related the line about "X cantidad de quimicos presentes en el cafe que son los mismos que usan para hacer cuero y ademas causan gastritis eventualmente en casi todas las personas que lo toman" myself, probably even embellishing it by throwing modifiers in from time to time to ram home my point. I hope that the new Preach My Gospel manual of the last decade helped to change the narrative on these issues, but since it tended to give the missionaries more leeway, I doubt that there has been much, if any, reduction in the spreading of faith-promoting explanations for things that merit real consideration.

[Paperback Writer]

The problem is the can of worms that opens, because we have always been informed that the BOA was translated via the Urim and Thummim from actual papyrus JS found. It's hard to back off of that, because if it wasn't a direct translation of the papyrus, why did he claim it was?

I suppose they could say he may have thought he was directly translating it, but he was actually inspired to records something entirely different. Of course, you still have the problems of the facsimiles. I suppose those were just not inspired interpretations in the first place. Anyone know if anyone ever claimed the facsimiles were interpreted by inspiration/revelation?

You're correct about the "can of worms". However, I don't think the U&T was part of the BofA translation. If I recall correctly, the narrative is that the U&T were repossessed by Moroni along with the Gold Plates. The problem is with a JS quote of "by the hand of Abraham" indicating that Abraham actually wrote upon the papyrus. But I've also read of the explanation that Abraham was only the orginal author and that his writings were transcribed, perhaps even incorrectly. Much like NT early writings being transcribed several times from the original. That's also a response to carbon dating of the JS papyrus that is much later than Abraham.

Another issue is JS's Eqyptian alaphabet that bears no resemblence to the Rosetta stone or Egyptology scholarship. If JS wasn't trying to translate Egyptian then what was he doing? Obviously, I don't have answers but an explanation I've read is that JS was inspired and the papyrus was sort of an impetus to revelation. That might also explain how JS translated portions of the gold plates despite the plates not being in the same room at the time.

IMO, critics would not have the same problems with the BofA if there were never any papyrus. If it was just another revelation to JS and included as sections in the D&C. On the flip side, that seems to be a classic tactic of a "confidence man" - an ancient artifact used to swindle the gullible. What I don't really get is: did JS really think he could translate Egyptian? That would have been an enormous breaktrough in 1835! And if he thought he would be successful, surely his translations would be subject to scrutiny by academia. Maybe he was over confident and thought he could "get away" with it. Or maybe even JS didn't comprehend the entire translation/revelation process.

[wuapinmon]

You're correct about the "can of worms". However, I don't think the U&T was part of the BofA translation. If I recall correctly, the narrative is that the U&T were repossessed by Moroni along with the Gold Plates. The problem is with a JS quote of "by the hand of Abraham" indicating that Abraham actually wrote upon the papyrus. But I've also read of the explanation that Abraham was only the orginal author and that his writings were transcribed, perhaps even incorrectly. Much like NT early writings being transcribed several times from the original. That's also a response to carbon dating of the JS papyrus that is much later than Abraham.

Another issue is JS's Eqyptian alaphabet that bears no resemblence to the Rosetta stone or Egyptology scholarship. If JS wasn't trying to translate Egyptian then what was he doing? Obviously, I don't have answers but an explanation I've read is that JS was inspired and the papyrus was sort of an impetus to revelation. That might also explain how JS translated portions of the gold plates despite the plates not being in the same room at the time.

IMO, critics would not have the same problems with the BofA if there were never any papyrus. If it was just another revelation to JS and included as sections in the D&C. On the flip side, that seems to be a classic tactic of a "confidence man" - an ancient artifact used to swindle the gullible. What I don't really get is: did JS really think he could translate Egyptian? That would have been an enormous breaktrough in 1835! And if he thought he would be successful, surely his translations would be subject to scrutiny by academia. Maybe he was over confident and thought he could "get away" with it. Or maybe even JS didn't comprehend the entire translation/revelation process.

Isn't there some FARMS article from the last 10 years about this very subject? I can't find it, but I would swear I read it there.

[Paperback Writer]

Unfortunately, the fascimiles go hand in hand with the text of the POGP. So the only way to try to save face with a faithful interpretation is to use the 'revelatory vehicle' explanation. Just like the golden plates, JS needed a tangible object to get the revelatory gears going. And he went too far with his own mind translating the fascimiles, which was obviously an incorrect translation.

It's a super thin tightrope to even try to walk, and that's why the church hasn't renounced the fascimiles. I understand that they don't want to damage faith in the man that has been honored for so long, but they are still being dishonest.

Totally agree. I mentioned the "revelatory vehicle" in an earlier response. It is a "thin tightrope". Either JS went "too far" and perhaps did not fully grasp the translation/revelation process that meshes with the "revelatory vehcile" theory. Or he went "too far" and thought he could "get away" with another fake translation. It's a pretty bold undertaking to think one can translate Egyptian - especially if one has a limited education.

[Northwestcoug]

Totally agree. I mentioned the "revelatory vehicle" in an earlier response. It is a "thin tightrope". Either JS went "too far" and perhaps did not fully grasp the translation/revelation process that meshes with the "revelatory vehcile" theory. Or he went "too far" and thought he could "get away" with another fake translation. It's a pretty bold undertaking to think one can translate Egyptian - especially if one has a limited education.

The evidence is clear he thought he could translate Egyptian. From the very beginning he was obsessed with things Egyptian; i.e. reformed Egyptian, mummies, papyri, Abraham in Egypt, Egyptian alphabet, etc. I don't think it was him taking stabs in the dark. So yes, your two options are the ones we have to choose between.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I got your point. Why is one worse than the other if the practice itself is 'wrong' in one's mind? A valid question that helped the discussion to where it got obnoxious. However, I also think that there's a bit of something missing in the phrasing of your question, because I was told, specifically, that JS did not practice polygamy when I was taking the missionary discussions, and in case I've never shared it here, I was taught by an elderly couple, who according to the general opinion of this thread, clearly knew or should've known the truth of the matter. I was also taught (and sadly, taught myself) that the polygamists married widows, ugly women who couldn't get men, or spitfires who liked being alone but wanted children (all things I was taught before the mission). In that context, it makes a huge difference to learn that Joseph Smith was having sex with teenage girls against his wife's wishes and with women married to other men already when I'm told that if I say a cuss word in church, the Spirit's gone and it's my fault that the meeting is thereafter ruined.

So it appears from you answer that it has little to do with JS vs BY per se, but rather the specific circumstances under which the practice started. Given this and other answers, it seems that this is the larger issue for people. This helps answer my question.

So, later when I see SU expressing his view with Mark Grace sort of agreeing with him, I'd had enough. The missionary program in the early 90's was full of all kinds of bullshit folk reasoning for questionable and objectionable behaviors, and I was subject to those false teachings, and they comforted me then, only to leave me feeling adrift once the truth became aware.

Again, I think you misinterpreted Mark's post. It seemed to me that he was trying to understand the mechanisms of the disillusionment process in a sincere manner. Pretty much the opposite spirit of what you are accusing. Dude, this is Mark effing Grace. The nicest guy on CS. You completely whiffed on this one, buddy.

[Paperback Writer]

Isn't there some FARMS article from the last 10 years about this very subject? I can't find it, but I would swear I read it there.

There might be. I've never been a reader of FARMS but for a time did some reading on FAIR. They might be mirror images of each other, not sure. I'm pretty sure I've encountered the "revelatory vehicle" theory in several places and one of them is most likely FAIR. But what I remember most about FAIR's response to BofA criticisms is the "we don't have all the papyrus scrolls" defense. But as I think more about it, I think the "many tanscribers but Abraham was the original author" argument probably came from FAIR along with the examples of NT sources that have been transcribed many times over centuries.

I'm still forming my views on the whole BofA issues. The "revelatory vehicle" theory does resonate with me. It would explain some of the criticisms of the BofA, some odd things about the BofM translation, and perphaps even Kinderhook. Maybe, I'm just grasping.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let me add, this happens all the time. Even really intelligent people react like this Swedish guy and people like me and Lebowski say, "WTF have you been thinking? You didn't know this stuff?" Middle aged apostates who were suddenly deconverted and should have known better all along pop up all the time, even really smart ones. Examples that come to mind are Ed Firmage, Steve Benson, Quinn and others of the September Six. A couple of years ago there was a guy from Austrialia, just like this Swedish guy. Why is this in the NYT? It's not really very interesting.

I've said this before. Not to be judgmental, but college is the ideal time for apostasy. Once you've lived a few decades, raised kids in the church, married a devout wife, etc., it gets a lot more complicated, and I respect those progmos who realize this; they are the ones with the truly complicated and nuanced perspective.

Sorry, amigo. D. Michael Quinn is still a believer.

[Paperback Writer]

The evidence is clear he thought he could translate Egyptian. From the very beginning he was obsessed with things Egyptian; i.e. reformed Egyptian, mummies, papyri, Abraham in Egypt, Egyptian alphabet, etc. I don't think it was him taking stabs in the dark. So yes, your two options are the ones we have to choose between.

Well, to boil it down futher:
Either Joseph Smith thought he could translate Egyptian or
he tought he could fool people into thinking he could translate Egyptian

Or maybe JS was delusional. Which could mean Fawn Brodie was right all this time. Excuse me while I wrap my head around that.

[Sullyute]

EDIT: I just realized that this was post #666 for me. You will all be happy to know that I will refrain from creating any new posts for a while, although I reserve the privilege of editing and re-editing old posts so that number doesn't change.

Maybe you just like repeating numbers but if you are looking for the mark of the beast, then you may have already missed it. The earliest known fragment of Rev 13:18 actually has the number as 616.

[Indy Coug]

Maybe you just like repeating numbers but if you are looking for the mark of the beast, then you may have already missed it. The earliest known fragment of Rev 13:18 actually has the number as 616.

So they're from Grand Rapids, Michigan. I already have a couple suspects in mind.

[Harry Tic]

Maybe you just like repeating numbers but if you are looking for the mark of the beast, then you may have already missed it. The earliest known fragment of Rev 13:18 actually has the number as 616.

Well, if that's true, I know some heavy metal guys with beautiful tattoos that are going to be really pissed.

[Harry Tic]

The evidence is clear he thought he could translate Egyptian. From the very beginning he was obsessed with things Egyptian; i.e. reformed Egyptian, mummies, papyri, Abraham in Egypt, Egyptian alphabet, etc. I don't think it was him taking stabs in the dark. So yes, your two options are the ones we have to choose between.

I found a quote from a affable chap that nicely summarizes my own views on this and why I'm not particularly worried about BoA issues:

"I guess I'm not as upset about that kind of thing as I should be since I came to the conclusion a long time ago that, while many people find it helpful to think of LDS theology in a "restorationist" mode, one may also find it useful to see JS as employing the restoration trope as a way of communicating his own insights--revelations, that is--in the only idiom that was available to him in Bible-obsessed Jacksonian America. All religious authority at the time was ultimately derived from ancient scripture and to even get in the game--to even attempt to bring new religious light into the world--meant that you had to do so in the idiom of ancient scripture. We know that God is obliged to speak to us according to the manner of our understanding but we rarely think about the ramifications of this idea. It's unsurprising that JS, showing up on the scene when he did, would consequently see himself first and foremost as a translator of ancient records (why, for instance, couldn't God have simply had Moroni dictate to JS the essence of the BoM? Why did he need an ancient record?). Harrell, if we were to read between the lines of his ostensibly dispassionate book, nevertheless seems to be troubled by this, as many orthodox believers might be. He seems utterly unaware of the significance of the fact that JS might be regarded as recapitulating certain elements of a long-standing tradition of pseudepigraphically generating scripture (which is an ancient tradition indeed). Is the question of Mormon scriptures' ancient origins even relevant? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm at the point where I don't find it a terribly interesting question to ask. We have the fruits of JS's revelations (or, if you prefer, go ahead and put "revelations" in scare quotes--it doesn't matter to me) available for our inspection: we can assess them on their own merits."

p.s. sorry I didn't know how to cut and paste a quote from another thread. My secretary usually does this for me and she's in Wendover this weekend, getting a tattoo retouched.

[Joe Public]

We know that God is obliged to speak to us according to the manner of our understanding but we rarely think about the ramifications of this idea.

Doesn't that concept come from 2 Ne. 31, or is there an OT/NT basis for it? I'm wondering about circularity.