Church News Downplays Significance of Book of Abraham

[All-American]

Yes, but is anyone commenting on that? I thought it was given that everyone clicked on the link to Gee's commentary.

I just thought I'd check up on that. It's not always a given.

[TripletDaddy]

I just thought I'd check up on that. It's not always a given.

ok. I thought maybe I was missing something else coming from your noggin.

[SeattleUte]

I repeat: I have no interest in wading into the minutiea of chinks in Mormon armor. But I have to say, a contention that it matters not whether JS translated the papyrus or made up the Book of Abraham is just dishonest. The Book of Abraham is immaterial to my own unbelief. But it should be material to belief. If Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Abraham, that is relevent, admissible and probabitive on the question of whether he fabricated the Book of Mormon.

Reading this guy from FAIR described as "a Latter-Day Saint Egyptologist" made my stomach turn.

[UtahDan]

Is the Church News downplaying it or are they simply reporting what "John Gee, an associate research professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU" said about the topic?

Wake me up when it's President Monson weighing in on the issue.

I think the context here is critical but I just don't know what it is. The Church News, I have always assumed, is published by the church who has editorial control over its content. If that is true, I would imagine that the editors of the periodical would think long and hard and probably seek the guidance of the owner of the paper before reporting that a FAIR apologist (an organization that falls under the tent of the church organization as well, I believe) is downplaying the significance of a book of scripture. If that is the context, you can almost view this as a trial balloon and it is very, very significant. In the age of correlation I have a hard time thinking something like this just slips though.

On the other hand, maybe I am wrong about who has editorial control and who vets the stories. Maybe we will see a statement soon from the church that this is just brother Gee's opinion. It certainly could be no more than that.

Who can clarify the context?

[scottie]

And nobody's bothered by the fact that it was an admitted spoof?

Folks, for those who haven’t been able to figure out what I had thought would be obvious, the Church News article referenced above is real, but the responses are a spoof in the style of The Onion or some other satirical news source. I had hoped to raise, in a humorous way, a number of interesting issues that I think are raised by this Church News article:

1. The Book of Abraham is the key support for the LDS doctrine of the pre-existence, and the pre-existence is treated as a foundational doctrine in official Church curriculum. Indeed, the pre-existence has been and is often the starting-point when we introduce our Restored doctrine to those investigating or newly converted to our faith. It is the “first estate” of our existence as described in our familiar version of the “Plan of Salvation.” For example, in our Gospel Principles manual, elements of the pre-existence are covered in all of the first six lessons. And unsurprisingly, the Book of Abraham is cited in all six of the first six lessons of the GP manual. If the Book of Abraham is “not central” to the Restored Gospel, one wonders why its contents are found in the first six lessons of the official Church manual we use to teach investigators and converts the Restored Gospel.

2. It is interesting that the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon made it into Dr. Gee’s list of six “central” points, but that the historical authenticity of the Book of Abraham did not, and I personally wonder what the justification is for treating them differently. Both were deemed important enough by God to go to the trouble of revealing to Joseph Smith. And both books were represented by Joseph Smith to be genuine and accurate translations of ancient records accomplished by the gift and power of God. So it seems the accuracy and authenticity of one ought to inform us about the accuracy and authenticity of the other. I therefore have great difficulty understanding how the literal historic truthfulness of the Book of Mormon makes the list of six “central” doctrines, but the Book of Abraham’s does not.

3. Dr. Gee’s list of six “central” points is also interesting for the many core LDS beliefs that it does not include. For example, it does not even include a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, nor does it even mention a belief in the Bible.

4. In determining the Book of Abraham is “non-central,” Dr. Gee seems to overlook the close relationship between the Book of Abraham and the temple. So there is an interesting paradox in his list of six “central” points of doctrine: while he includes making and keeping covenants on the list of six essentials, he downplays the significance of the book of scripture that in many ways creates the doctrinal foundation for many aspects of those temple ordinances.

5. Although we have a rich and well-established culture of belief that “the mantle is far, far greater than the intellect,” that “God’s foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men,” and that we need to rely on the “rock of revelation” rather than leaning on the “arm of the flesh,” it seems that increasingly the statements of past prophets, seers, and revelators are being disregarded by LDS scholars. For example, despite statements by Joseph Smith and others indicating that the Lamanites and Nephites ranged all over the North American continent, LDS scholars are now telling us that all the BOM action was confined to a very small area in southern Mexico and Guatemala. This shift in scholarly consensus, as well as the DNA controversy, preceded the Church’s recent decision to revise the Introduction to the Book of Mormon to eliminate the previous official position that the Lamanites were the “principal” ancestors of the American Indian. When LDS scholars are unable to develop satisfactory answers to the challenges posed by critics, it seems the response is, increasingly, to downgrade the earlier revelation-based claims as “not central” to our faith, even though past prophets, seers, and revelators plainly saw otherwise, as is often reflected in our official Church curriculum. I’m not arguing over whether this is right or wrong, I’m just observing that it’s happening.

6. This article represents an example of how this displacement of past revelation by modern scholarship is gradually occurring: by quoting LDS scholars in an official church publication. The Church does not print everything that is said at a scholarly conference, so the fact that Dr. Gee’s statements were published in the Church News, rather than just being covered in the FAIR newsletter, suggests to Church members reading the Church News that Dr. Gee’s statements are Church-approved.

7. Lastly, one wonders whether this evaluation of the Book of Abraham as being “not central” will result in our removing it from our Standard Works?

___

[Indy Coug]

I think the context here is critical but I just don't know what it is. The Church News, I have always assumed, is published by the church who has editorial control over its content. If that is true, I would imagine that the editors of the periodical would think long and hard and probably seek the guidance of the owner of the paper before reporting that a FAIR apologist (an organization that falls under the tent of the church organization as well, I believe) is downplaying the significance of a book of scripture. If that is the context, you can almost view this as a trial balloon and it is very, very significant. In the age of correlation I have a hard time thinking something like this just slips though.

On the other hand, maybe I am wrong about who has editorial control and who vets the stories. Maybe we will see a statement soon from the church that this is just brother Gee's opinion. It certainly could be no more than that.

Who can clarify the context?

One side could claim it's the church launching a trial balloon and another side could claim it's simply the Church News being more open to differing viewpoints (yes, I realize that is a pretty relative statement).

Who is on the Church News editorial board?

[Hallelujah]

Glad that someone attempts to comment on it. During the past two general conferences I hoped that President Monson or one of the Q12 would comment on why the church chose to go the route that they did with Prop 8, but nary a word. Instead we heard about a widow walking across a frozen country and digging graves with a tablespoon.

Proclamation on the Family. What else needs to be said. If the brethren believe that, is it really that much of a stretch to see why they would support Prop 8?

[jay santos]

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/08/31/...ok-of-abraham/

I hate these stupid fake news articles. I don't have time to read a page of material before finding out it's a spoof. I'm skimming through this kind of stuff anyway, and I might not spot out the clues immediately.

[ERCougar]

Proclamation on the Family. What else needs to be said. If the brethren believe that, is it really that much of a stretch to see why they would support Prop 8?

Not at all. We should also be resurrecting Prohibition, banning women from the workplace, banning cigarettes, coffee, and tea from being sold, banning stores from operating on Sundays, and taking a mandatory tithing tax from all paychecks.

[scottie]

I hate these stupid fake news articles. I don't have time to read a page of material before finding out it's a spoof. I'm skimming through this kind of stuff anyway, and I might not spot out the clues immediately.

Jay, see what I posted in post #35.

[jay santos]

Wake me up when it's President Monson weighing in on the issue.

Wake up Pres. Monson when Eyring has something to say about it.

[Fiyero]

Proclamation on the Family. What else needs to be said. If the brethren believe that, is it really that much of a stretch to see why they would support Prop 8?

Look it's not as though any talk in the past ten conferences wasn't full of the same things that have already been said a hundred times. Home teaching. Live within your means. Love at home. Honesty. Testimony of Joseph Smith. Morality.

My point is that it was a major current issue that had many people concerned, and they ignored it altogether.

[jay santos]

Jay, see what I posted in post #35.

Yes, I'm just sick of the bloggers and posters who spend an afternoon writing a spoof like this, although gratefully they used the name LaVerl Jensen early on, saving me from wasting more time in this case.

[SoCalCoug]

Is the Church News downplaying it or are they simply reporting what "John Gee, an associate research professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU" said about the topic?

Wake me up when it's President Monson weighing in on the issue.

I think you're kidding about being asleep - you post too much to be sleeping.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Wake me up when it's President Monson weighing in on the issue.

Hell is likely to freeze over first.