Church News Downplays Significance of Book of Abraham

[TripletDaddy]

Although, it should be noted that we do not have the vast majority of the scroll.

The story goes something along these lines. Due to the age of the scrolls, frequent rolling and unrolling caused some damages, especially along the edges of the scrolls. The method used to preserve the scrolls was to cut off the deteriorating edges and mount them. The main part of the scroll was destroyed in a museum during the Chicago fire a few years after the Nauvoo period. The deteriorating edge was rediscovered in the 1960's or so, having been gifted along the way. Dr. Gee (aka the Angel of Death) believes that the eleven extant fragments came from two of the original five scrolls of which Joseph had possession, therefore constituting about one eighth of the original papyri. We don't, for example, have any scroll with red and black lettering, though Oliver Cowdery so described one of the scrolls.

yes, did not mean to cast in false light, but rather give synopsis. Yes, potential theories have been offered before....received with mixed enthusiasm...some see it is a form of apologetics, others as a plausibility.

My original point....what you just summarized in one paragraph is way more than the average person knows about the issues surrounding the BoA. Sleeping in EQ is correct...the Church curricula definitely seems to steer away from any specific references to the BoA. i have always wondered why the facsimiles are even printed in the standard works when we are discouraged from speculating as to the meaning yet are given no official lesson material regarding the same. This latest press release in the Church News certainly does little to bolster hope that the Church is strongly convinced that Joseph's translation is entirely accurate, at least imo.

[TripletDaddy]

What I mean is what does it matter whether the BOA came about from a seer stone, spectacles held by a ribbon, or a portable hieroglyphic? This should be filed in the same category as the plates that were translated while Joseph's face was in a hat, then witnessed by a group of people named Smith before being taken by an angel to Kolob for safekeeping.

The actual texts of Abraham 3, Alma 30 and so forth is where one's concern should be. Those are the fruits of Joseph Smith. The temple instruction. The doctrines and covenants. Testimony sealed by blood.

There is a big difference. Physical evidence exists of the papyri. Egyptologists have examined them and all conclude that they are funerary texts. There needs to be an explanation for the discrepancy. Simply stating, "oh, well....it isn't a central to our belief system" is unacceptable. This is canonized scripture we are talking about. Not blacks/priesthood doctrine/policy. This is one of the standard works.

There is no physical evidence of the plates still in existence. However, if there were, and they were found to contain mistranslations contrary to what we know to be the modern day Book of Mormon, that would present a huge problem.

You are correct in that the overall message is still the same, however. From that standpoint, it doesn't matter.

[SeattleUte]

yes, did not mean to cast in false light, but rather give synopsis. Yes, potential theories have been offered before....received with mixed enthusiasm...some see it is a form of apologetics, others as a plausibility.

My original point....what you just summarized in one paragraph is way more than the average person knows about the issues surrounding the BoA. Sleeping in EQ is correct...the Church curricula definitely seems to steer away from any specific references to the BoA. i have always wondered why the facsimiles are even printed in the standard works when we are discouraged from speculating as to the meaning yet are given no official lesson material regarding the same. This latest press release in the Church News certainly does little to bolster hope that the Church is strongly convinced that Joseph's translation is entirely accurate, at least imo.

It's apologetics pure and simple. Nor is the fossil record a complete picture, but it's enough of a picture.

I read Hugh Nibley quoted in the New Yorker, kind of throwing up his hands over this issue, flummoxed: "No one knows if there even was an Abraham." The most honest thing he ever said. He was right. Abraham is a mythical figure. Even believing in him is a as much as creationism. "Intellects" don't see Abraham as a historical figure.

Note that Dr. Death isn't claiming Joseph did "translate" the papyrus. Like a criminal lawyer with a guilty client he's not trying to prove anything, just trying to plant any seed of doubt he can with his awful case.

[Fiyero]

There is a big difference. Physical evidence exists of the papyri. Egyptologists have examined them and all conclude that they are funerary texts.

Have you ever listened to a general conference talk or some dialogue in the temple, and what entered your mind was not what the person was saying, but instead it you gained a better understanding of a different principle? One that was somewhat related, but different?

It's as though doctrinally, you can lay a text out horizontally and it may have its meaning, but somewhere in that text from point a to point b, there is a vertical teaching that enters your mind collaterally.

That's what Zelph told me, anyway.

[TripletDaddy]

It's apologetics pure and simple. Nor is the fossil record a complete picture, but it's enough of a picture.

I read Hugh Nibley quoted in the New Yorker, kind of throwing up his hands over this issue, flumoxed: "No one knows if there even was an Abraham." The most honest thing he ever said. He was right. Abraham is a mythical figure. Even believing in him is a as much as creationism. "Intellects" don't see Abraham as a historical figure.

Note that Dr. Death isn't claiming Joseph did "translate" the papyrus. Like a criminal lawyer with a guilty client he's not trying to prove anything, just trying to plant any seed of doubt he can with his awful case.

It strikes me as apologetics, yes, but I am trying to be fair and acknowledge that there are missing pieces that could very well contain writings that more closely resemble that which Joseph presented as the writings of Abraham.

This most recent pronouncement in the Church news is definitely apologetics. This goes beyond "we believe the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly." At least with the Bible, we are taught that it also contains the fullness of the gospel (although Anal Miracle has been vociferous in his disagreements with what the Church teaches in this regard). In the case of the BoA, we have the LDS Church publishing in the Church News that certain canonized scripture isn't terribly central to our core belief system.

This, my friends, is very interesting and noteworthy. I wonder if this will come up on Oct conference....a few apostles give talks on the unimportance of the Book of Abraham. Sounds weird to me.

[Fiyero]

This is very interesting and noteworthy. I wonder if this will come up on Oct conference.

I wager 10:1 that they ignore the subject altogether. Serious offer.

[TripletDaddy]

I wager 10:1 that they ignore the subject altogether. Serious offer.

The only thing less likely than this topic being broached at Conference is that you suddenly grow tired of E-Cuth avatars.

[Fiyero]

Those avatars are too damn small.

[TripletDaddy]

speaking of scrolls popping up out of nowhere.....

[SeattleUte]

Have you ever listened to a general conference talk or some dialogue in the temple, and what entered your mind was not what the person was saying, but instead it you gained a better understanding of a different principle? One that was somewhat related, but different?

It's as though doctrinally, you can lay a text out horizontally and it may have its meaning, but somewhere in that text from point a to point b, there is a vertical teaching that enters your mind collaterally.

That's what Zelph told me, anyway.

Once you start saying, "The scrolls were his muse; he looked at them and had a vision and thought he translated them," you've stepped through the looking glass into la la land. There's no reasoning with you, you're bound and determined to believe what you want to believe.

The funny thing is I never knew about the Book of Abraham scrolls until decades after I left the LDS Church. The only thing that surprised me was that some dog handn't eaten them.

[All-American]

In the case of the BoA, we have the LDS Church publishing in the Church News that certain canonized scripture isn't terribly central to our core belief system.

This, my friends, is very interesting and noteworthy.

Clearly you haven't read much of the Church News. It isn't the same thing as the Ensign.

What a weekly publication of the Deseret News reports that an Egyptologist at BYU said during a FAIR conference is not the same as what a general authority said during general conference.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I wager 10:1 that they ignore the subject altogether. Serious offer.

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

Hell is likely to freeze over first.

I'm just sayin'

[TripletDaddy]

Clearly you haven't read much of the Church News. It isn't the same thing as the Ensign.

What a weekly publication of the Deseret News reports that an Egyptologist at BYU said during a FAIR conference is not the same as what a general authority said during general conference.

You would be wise to heed the counsel of Brother Gee:

...truth is not well-served by a bad argument. We apologists make no claims to perfection, either in ourselves or our arguments, so it is simply better to let go of bad arguments.

[Fiyero]

I reread Joseph Smith's writings in History of the Church that concern the papyrus and the Book of Abraham. (Thanks to the search feature on GospeLink, it doesn't take much time to get right to them).

He said there were several scrolls. One of them had the hieroglyphics in question, and the others had [text] that he used to translate the Book of Abraham.

As for the images in the hieroglyphics, Joseph said one image was of Kolob, several images were of idolatrous gods, another was of Pharoah being worshipped, and others hadn't been revealed.

My question is, why is this an issue? Modern scholars say they are funerary texts. Why wouldn't ancient Egyptians be buried with images of their gods and the like? And text that concerns Abraham the father of all nations?

Ask ten religions what John 1:1 means and you'll receive ten different answers.

[CardiacCoug]

The papyrus gives us a glimpse of what may have happened had the golden plates ended up in a museum, with experts spending decades disagreeing on what the various markings represented.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Had the golden plates been preserved and put in a museum, I'm pretty sure they would have the same relationship to the text of the Book of Mormon that the papyrus has to the text of the Book of Abraham: no relationship whatsoever.

Experts don't disagree regarding the papyrus as far as I am aware. I think they're all pretty much in agreement.