Church News Downplays Significance of Book of Abraham

[doctorcoug]

That was just straight up stupid analysis.

Are we to assume that we downplay the need of a modern prophet because he didn't address it?

This article was a waste of my time.

[All-American]

That was just straight up stupid analysis.

Are we to assume that we downplay the need of a modern prophet because he didn't address it?

This article was a waste of my time.

Speaking of people we wouldn't call physicians . . .

[pellegrino]

So I asked a good friend of mine (he's actually my best friend's father) what he thought of the report of Gee's presentation in the church news. Although he's a math professor, he's been researching Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham for a few decades. He runs the Book of Abraham Project website:

http://www.boap.org/
http://boaporg.wordpress.com

Anyways, I thought I'd post his response, which I thought was interesting, particularly the second paragraph.

I have not talked with John for a long time. But I don't think he meant to say that the Book of Abraham was not worth defending. In a way he may have been breaking a little ground for the critical edition which will probably surface next year. There are a few conclusions there that may seem a bit strange to some Saints. Also, I think John has taken a little professional (Egyptological) heat for his extensive involvement in Abraham things perhaps to the exclusion of other studies and maybe he is breaking away from that some. I think he may be a little tired of going over the same ground time after time with critics or questioning members. That's just speculation, but his speech hinted at that. Finally, I heard him say things I've been saying for years regarding the relative importance of the BOA. Its only 5 pages. And the facsimiles, whose place has never been fully understood by anyone, have overshadowed a text that deserves much more attention. My take.

One more thing, I've tracked how often the BOA has been mentioned in faithful Mormon discourse by name or by pericope since 1842. It just never got much press. If not for an enterprising Franklin D. Richards, I think it may have diminished into Mormon backwaters. But even so, it never made a splash on the Mormon scene until 1907 or so (and that was in the context of something else altogether) and didn't really hit the anti-Mormon scene until 1912. Rather than a devotional object, it's mostly been a lightening rod.

[doctorcoug]

Speaking of people we wouldn't call physicians . . .

Sure, I'll accept your jab.

My statement stands, this guy is looking far too much into the six core.

[Art Vandelay]

So I asked a good friend of mine (he's actually my best friend's father) what he thought of the report of Gee's presentation in the church news. Although he's a math professor, he's been researching Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham for a few decades. He runs the Book of Abraham Project website:

http://www.boap.org/
http://boaporg.wordpress.com

Anyways, I thought I'd post his response, which I thought was interesting, particularly the second paragraph.

An interesting perspective, thanks for asking him and sharing his insights.

[SeattleUte]

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.

There were no golden plates.

[SloanHater]

There were no golden plates.

For a guy that fights dogma on a daily basis...

[Portland Ute]

I thought the spoof was a little flat, myself, but that's just a matter of taste.

At any rate, the title is misleading. The "Church" did not "downplay the significance of the Book of Abraham." A lecturer at a FAIR conference at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS) did.

Sorry to bump this. I was reading about the Book of Abraham today and decided to do a search here on CUF.

I saw this post. I had to chime in, I guess, and state the obvious which is that this article appears in the Church News which is published by the Deseret News which is owned by the LDS church.

I don't think you can distance the LDS church too far from this article or Gee's statments, as the Church has made no attempt to distance itself from these statements and, in fact, published them.

[Viking]

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

Oh my. The talking heads at FAIR might as well just say, "we can't defend this nonsense any more."

They can't. It the egyptian drawings as translated by JS have been long debunked by Egyptologists. The whole book is likely a total fabrication.

[Viking]

There were no golden plates.

SU, let me help you here: it's unlikely that there were any golden plates. You don't know that there were not...no one but JS does.

[Portland Ute]

Sorry to bump this. I was reading about the Book of Abraham today and decided to do a search here on CUF.

I saw this post. I had to chime in, I guess, and state the obvious which is that this article appears in the Church News which is published by the Deseret News which is owned by the LDS church.

I don't think you can distance the LDS church too far from this article or Gee's statments, as the Church has made no attempt to distance itself from these statements and, in fact, published them.

Obviously, this topic became interesting to me when it the Book of Abraham was discussed today in Sunday School.

[All-American]

Sorry to bump this. I was reading about the Book of Abraham today and decided to do a search here on CUF.

I saw this post. I had to chime in, I guess, and state the obvious which is that this article appears in the Church News which is published by the Deseret News which is owned by the LDS church.

I don't think you can distance the LDS church too far from this article or Gee's statments, as the Church has made no attempt to distance itself from these statements and, in fact, published them.

The LDS church doesn't need to attempt to distance itself from these statements. Were it otherwise, I'd accept everything said by Orson Scott Card and Don Osmond Jr. as the word, mind, and will of God. Respondeat Superior can only get you so far.

[Portland Ute]

The LDS church doesn't need to attempt to distance itself from these statements. Were it otherwise, I'd accept everything said by Orson Scott Card and Don Osmond Jr. as the word, mind, and will of God. Respondeat Superior can only get you so far.

The article was published by the LDS owned paper and is regarding the comments of an LDS employee.

This goes beyond distancing. They are, in fact, publicizing and endorsing his comments.

[TripletDaddy]

Respondeat Superior can only get you so far.

Ah, to be a 1L again. Good memories.

[All-American]

SU has a completely legitimate argument and the only thing you come up with is ad hominem bullshit.

You do know what "ad hominem" means, right? You kind of give me the impression that you don't.

To suggest that an argument is tired, worn out, and unpersuasive is not an "ad hominem" attack. It simply indicates that it is unlikely to be effective, given the audience. It doesn't concern the "hominem" at all. To tell somebody that "this stupid asshole isn't even worth your time," on the other hand, is an 'ad hominem" attack.

Hope that helps!