LDS.org Gospel Topics article about the Book of Abraham

[Northwestcoug]

How about a different question. Why does the church still publish the fascimiles? Is it because there is still a belief that contrary to all evidence, JS's interpretation of them is right? Is it because the church is afraid of the tacit admission that JS was wrong in at least one part of his prophetic calling, if they stopped publishing it?

Any other possibilities?

[Clark Addison]

Serious question. Would it harm the faith of many members to take out the fascimiles from the scriptures? Those are the only things that physically tie the BOA to the papyri. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that article is trying to imply about the fascimiles (translations are wrong, but not really! Look at the alligator and the four corners of the earth!). But they are throwing up multiple theories that lead to the very loose interpretation of the BOA. They are coming very close to implying that the papyri shouldn't be viewed as a necessary physical source for the translation.

So, most agree that the interpretation of the fascimiles are, ahem, ridiculous. And, the church wants most to believe that we don't have the source material anymore for the BOA (the long scroll theory which basically has one source; not very believable). So why not take them out? They have no meaningful use anymore (aside from keeping kids awake during sac meeting). Sure, they were used as bonafides to show JS was a revelator. But now that they don't anymore, take 'em out.

Are they really that important to the faith of the general membership?

There would be harm in that bored people at church would have nothing to look at once they have made their way through all of the maps.

Can you see the facsimiles in the electronic version of the scriptures (or the maps for that matter)? I am embarrassed to say that I don't know. Possibly because ever since I started bringing electronic scriptures, I have more interesting things than maps and facsimiles to look at when I am bored.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hmmm. I am not sure that's correct. They are an important step for the church.

First, it is in writing. In the past it was rare that these types of issues were ever addressed in writing outside of conference talks. Here the church is sticking its neck out and taking a position. Even if most people paying attention don't like it, the fact that they took a specific written position is significant.

Second, by taking a written position it forces the church to evaluate the issue and to think through the position. Again, many people such as yourself, may not find it satisfying, but it provides a reasoned starting point for dialog. This article, for example, provides appropriate and authorized bases for discussing translation, the nature of prophecy and revelation, the scope and meaning of scripturally based truth, etc. This is very important, in my mind, in order to increase the tent, as some here have put it. The orthodox may still cling to their views, but they may also loosen hold in light of these comments. The less than orthodox feel included and maybe emboldened to talk about their ideas. The searching see that it isn't McConkie's Mormon Doctrine church anymore.

SO, while I understand why you don't find it satisfying, I think it is very useful and important and, in the long run, is exactly the sort of thing that will help the church.

Good points.

But I wonder how thoroughly this stuff is vetted. How many different viewpoints they consider when putting these together? So far it looks like they are just farming it out by contracting folks like John Gee to write it. Meh...

[Green Monstah]

Serious question. Would it harm the faith of many members to take out the fascimiles from the scriptures? Those are the only things that physically tie the BOA to the papyri. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that article is trying to imply about the fascimiles (translations are wrong, but not really! Look at the alligator and the four corners of the earth!). But they are throwing up multiple theories that lead to the very loose interpretation of the BOA. They are coming very close to implying that the papyri shouldn't be viewed as a necessary physical source for the translation.

So, most agree that the interpretation of the fascimiles are, ahem, ridiculous. And, the church wants most to believe that we don't have the source material anymore for the BOA (the long scroll theory which basically has one source; not very believable). So why not take them out? They have no meaningful use anymore (aside from keeping kids awake during sac meeting). Sure, they were used as bonafides to show JS was a revelator. But now that they don't anymore, take 'em out.

Are they really that important to the faith of the general membership?

There are a few pictures on the faxes that remind me of the temple. Out of respect, I won't elaborate further. In my more stalwart days, I used the faxes as a way to bolster my faith in the otherwise bizzarre nature of portions of the endowment.

[Northwestcoug]

There are a few pictures on the faxes that remind me of the temple. Out of respect, I won't elaborate further. In my more stalwart days, I used the faxes as a way to bolster my faith in the otherwise bizzarre nature of portions of the endowment.

Then maybe there is part of the leadership that believes JS's translation has merit. I think that would be the most 'benign' explanation of why they are still canonized.

[Uncle Ted]

Then maybe there is part of the leadership that believes JS's translation has merit. I think that would be the most 'benign' explanation of why they are still canonized.

How else would one justify the priesthood ban with scriptures? Oh, wait, we don't know where that all came from.

[jay santos]

Donut's gonna be pissed when he finds out about this...

[Donuthole]

Donut's gonna be pissed when he finds out about this...

pelagius may or may not be doing this to spite me, but I agree with his decision. My crusade is to keep same or very similar topics together, so that when you search you can find everything (or most everything) that has been discussed. Each of these "inoculation efforts" covers a distinct topic, so I have no problem separating them.

[scottie]

Donut's gonna be pissed when he finds out about this...

Funny. Someone (I think JL), split this thread off from the Inoculation thread.

[pelagius]

pelagius may or may not be doing this to spite me, but I agree with his decision. My crusade is to keep same or very similar topics together, so that when you search you can find everything (or most everything) that has been discussed. Each of these "inoculation efforts" covers a distinct topic, so I have no problem separating them.

Yeah, it was me; not trying to spite you though. I split it for the reason you articulate in your last sentence.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Funny. Someone (I think JL), split this thread off from the Inoculation thread.

Not me.

[Donuthole]

Yeah, it was me; not trying to spite you though. I split it for the reason you articulate in your last sentence.

Yeah, I was mostly kidding about the spite. Mostly.

[ERCougar]

Snarky but a little funny:

"There is some debate as to the exact location of Santa Claus in the North Pole. There are several locations such as Santikos which may represent related locations of Santa Claus, but these are mostly located in San Antonio, Texas. Whatever the origin and location of Santa Claus, we do know that on Christmas morning every year millions upon millions of Christians have large and sometimes very extravagant gifts found under their trees. We believe this supports the doctrine of Santa Claus. In any case, sending a letter to Santa Claus and then receiving the gift requested is the time tested method to know of the existence of Santa Claus and supersedes all scientific methods to prove his existence."

[ewth8tr]

It's pretty funny how similar the essay is to Brother Jake's video from last year.
[Youtube]t_iuV2vIXlI[/YouTube]

[Pheidippides]

It's pretty funny how similar the essay is to Brother Jake's video from last year.
[Youtube]t_iuV2vIXlI[/YouTube]

Eerily similar.