Coming to terms with the Book of Abraham

[DKM88]

I feel like I've been on a tailspin for about a year and I'm about done with it all. What I mean by that is I feel like I've lost virtually all of my faith for a number of reasons, all being historical/doctrinal issues with the church. Now I feel like I've got the back breaker...the Book of Abraham.

It's widespread knowledge (apparently) that the Book of Abraham was completely wrong. What I mean is that now that we have scholars that can actually read the Egyptian language, we know that the Book of Abraham was simply a funeral text and nothing more. In other words Joseph Smith was completely wrong in this translation. There's no way of getting around this. There's not faith involved. We have the manuscript and it's been proven wrong.

My question is how do you wrap your mind around this? How do you come to terms with this and still feel good about Joseph Smith and the validity of everything else he did (or any of the other prophets for that matter)?

Thank you in advance for the responses. I'm sorry of my post isn't all that clear, but I'm dead tired physically, intellectually, and spiritually right now. Any help would be appreciated.

[bytebear]

For me there are two possibilities. 1) God used the scrolls as a catalyst for an overflow of revelation which Smith interpreted as a translation. 2) there are scrolls included which did contain a more literal translation. Either way, the church makes no claims of a literal interpretation. I only know of one second hand (or possibly third hand) account of Smith claiming it to be the actual scrolls written on by Abraham himself. But I never believed that. I believe that God uses tools to help a prophet fulfill his tasks, and the papyrus was a tool, a catalyst, a trigger, a conduit, whatever you want to call it to prime the pump of revelation.

[Spartan117]

You watched that 'Lost Book of Abraham' mocumentary didn't you? That clever little film made by IRR (top-notch anti-mormon group) that really makes you believe it's a scholarly production. I'm just guessing at this, because when I first saw it, I sat down with the same "ideas" about the BofA that you're having. My faith had been shaken.

Then I found out the Institute of Religious Research (IRR) wasn't being honest with me. This wasn't even an original work, the film is just an adaptation of a book they wrote in the 80's. It is so well done too, you really believe it's an unbiased objective look at the BofA. Once you start poking around this "documentary" though, the walls turn out to be nothing more than cards, and it all comes crashing down.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf

Watch it again, then give that a read. Then research it yourself. Brigham Young said himself that we should never take his or anyone else's word about anything, we should find out for ourselves.

If I am mistaken and you've never heard of this video I'm talking about, please disregard.

[Spartan117]

Additional: Read up on the Nag Hammadi library and it's parallels to LDS theology. There are Christian texts with composition dates as early as 80 CE, that were considered "heretical" by the early Catholic Church. This particular set was buried in Egypt and found in 1945. The "heretical" teachings in these texts include things like an account of a meeting between the original 12 and the resurrected Savior that documents ...

"instructions of the risen Jesus to the twelve disciples and their female partners as to what one’s soul was to say and do at each gate as it ascended to the celestial heights."

Premortal council, two plans presented, war in heaven...

"We are told also that Seth had sat in the premortal council and had proposed the plan accepted joyously by all. As a consequence, he was sent to execute that plan. Naturally, a counter-plan was proposed and a war in heaven ensued in which both Adam and his son Seth played prominent roles."

Adam's premortal memories veiled, but recovered after partaking of the fruit, and he was taught celestial knowledge by 3 messengers, and that knowledge was only to be passed on to "worthy initiates ...

"it was knowledge of such celestial truths which Adam had possessed before he came to the earth and which were subsequently removed from his consciousness. This loss of celestial knowledge became the basis for the gnostic salvation drama: because it was lost, it had to be restored. Thus, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they recovered what had been lost and, now being able to see the world for what it was, set about to escape the influence of its vengeful god.

According to the Apocalypse of Adam, moreover, Adam’s recovery of the knowledge of both his premortal existence and what was to happen in future ages of the earth was to play a significant role for him and his posterity. Such information, it was claimed, Adam learned from three messengers who revealed to him the history of the world from beginning to end. Adam then transmitted those secrets to his son Seth, who was said to transmit them to “his seed,” that is, only to worthy initiates."

There is detailed information about the endowment (that I would not feel comfortable discussing outside the temple) that LDS history claims were once taught but lost, then restored through Joseph Smith.

The library was not discovered until almost 100 years after Joseph Smith was murdered, and was sealed up about 1600-1700 years ago. There is no way he had access to these writings.

Draw your own conclusions, but don't wrap your testimony up in the Book of Abraham and throw it away, especially if it was because of that anti film. Come to terms with Nag Hammadi library before you ask to have your name removed from the records. Come to terms with 2000 year old Christian texts that outline the endowment detail for detail.

[Guest Ivo_G]

My question is how do you wrap your mind around this?

I'm not a member but I've been investigating the church for about an year now. When I read the BoA - I read it as scripture and assumed it's true by deffinition. Of course as a true investigator I went looking for some background information on the book and ended up reading some of the "anti-mormon" stuff but I'm already used to not taking that kind of info at face value - so I read a few of Nibley's papers on the subject as well -> he made a pretty good case for the book and that was enough for me :)

p.s. so yeah - the BoA was never proven as "completely wrong"....actually there's quite a lot of facts supporting its authenticity...

Edited September 5, 2011 by Ivo_G

[Justice]

We have the Book of Moses and no ancient text was used. It came as a result of Joseph Smith making a more plain translation of the Bible.

If it's the document itself that's bothering you, try reading the Book of Abraham and praying about it to see if it's true.

[Jason_J]

In addition to what has already been said, I also find the parallels between the Book of Abraham and other ancient texts fascinating, especially when the critics would have you believe that Joseph Smith just made it up:

LDS FAQ: Ancient Evidences for the Book of Abraham: Other Records Confirm its Story

[volgadon]

I feel like I've been on a tailspin for about a year and I'm about done with it all. What I mean by that is I feel like I've lost virtually all of my faith for a number of reasons, all being historical/doctrinal issues with the church. Now I feel like I've got the back breaker...the Book of Abraham.

It's widespread knowledge (apparently) that the Book of Abraham was completely wrong. What I mean is that now that we have scholars that can actually read the Egyptian language, we know that the Book of Abraham was simply a funeral text and nothing more. In other words Joseph Smith was completely wrong in this translation. There's no way of getting around this. There's not faith involved. We have the manuscript and it's been proven wrong.

My question is how do you wrap your mind around this? How do you come to terms with this and still feel good about Joseph Smith and the validity of everything else he did (or any of the other prophets for that matter)?

Thank you in advance for the responses. I'm sorry of my post isn't all that clear, but I'm dead tired physically, intellectually, and spiritually right now. Any help would be appreciated.

I'm going to send you a private message.

[Traveler]

In addition to what has already been said, I also find the parallels between the Book of Abraham and other ancient texts fascinating, especially when the critics would have you believe that Joseph Smith just made it up:

LDS FAQ: Ancient Evidences for the Book of Abraham: Other Records Confirm its Story

The Book of Abraham is written in a very ancient Egyptian style that does date back to the age of Abraham. Even to this date there are no other modern books written in this style - even by Joseph Smith. This style was not discovered until long after Joseph wrote the Book of Abraham.

In addition the Papyri referenced in the Book of Mormon is not simple funeral text but was also part of ritual coronations of Pharaohs that symbolized eternal salvation with G-d. Although the date of the Papyri is nowhere near the time of Abraham there are references similar in very ancient text.

To say that the Papyri has nothing to do with ritual of creation (birth), life cycles and salvation beyond the grave (spoken of in the Book of Abraham) is completely false. I would also point out there are no Biblical manuscripts that can be dated any closer to the historical events they represent. There is no more faith or less scientific evidence supporting the Book of Abraham that there is in the historical validity of the Bible. But like any biased commentary that starts out with assumptions - anything could be proven. Even the super bowl champions can be made to look like the worse of all NFL teams if only select footage is included.

The Traveler

[DKM88]

No, I hadn't seen the video, but I have now. It seems that according to FAIR they made mistakes in the video. But it still doesn't negate the fact that Joseph said that it was "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

All of the prophets have taught this, that it was written by Abraham himself, until the scholars of the Egyptian language translated it and found that it had nothing to do with Abraham and was simply a funeral text.

It goes even deeper with the translations. For example, the Kinderhook plates. I know that we're taught that Joseph never "fell for it." But if you look at the records of the Church, it was claimed they were legitimate historical records and Joseph did partly translate them. After it was revealed that they were a hoax, the Church denied it and said that the men claiming to have manufactured the Kinderhook plates could not be trusted and that the plates were real. In 1990 (I could be wrong on the date), scientists got permission to use destructive methods on the one kinderhook plate left and it was found to be from the 1800's, not an ancient record. Son now we have two instances of the Prophet failing to do what he claimed to do.

After a while things stop making sense in a literal, spiritual, the Church-is-true kind of way. I'm just sick and tired of all of the justifications from the apologist side. It's like for me to keep my faith I have to do so many mental gymnastics and believe that 1+1=3, and that even though it doesn't make sense now, just be faithful and God will reveal why it's 3. Whereas on the other side of the coin by accepting the Church is man-made because 1+1=2, everything falls into place.

I don't know what to do anymore.

[skippy740]

Had to update the title of this thread. I kept thinking "BofA" was Bank of America and you had finally come to terms with them...

[bytebear]

No, I hadn't seen the video, but I have now. It seems that according to FAIR they made mistakes in the video. But it still doesn't negate the fact that Joseph said that it was "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

All of the prophets have taught this, that it was written by Abraham himself, until the scholars of the Egyptian language translated it and found that it had nothing to do with Abraham and was simply a funeral text.

It goes even deeper with the translations. For example, the Kinderhook plates. I know that we're taught that Joseph never "fell for it." But if you look at the records of the Church, it was claimed they were legitimate historical records and Joseph did partly translate them. After it was revealed that they were a hoax, the Church denied it and said that the men claiming to have manufactured the Kinderhook plates could not be trusted and that the plates were real. In 1990 (I could be wrong on the date), scientists got permission to use destructive methods on the one kinderhook plate left and it was found to be from the 1800's, not an ancient record. Son now we have two instances of the Prophet failing to do what he claimed to do.

After a while things stop making sense in a literal, spiritual, the Church-is-true kind of way. I'm just sick and tired of all of the justifications from the apologist side. It's like for me to keep my faith I have to do so many mental gymnastics and believe that 1+1=3, and that even though it doesn't make sense now, just be faithful and God will reveal why it's 3. Whereas on the other side of the coin by accepting the Church is man-made because 1+1=2, everything falls into place.

I don't know what to do anymore.

So, basically, you are going to reject the content of the Book of Abraham because someone quoted Smith as saying, "the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand" and even if Smith said that (which he may not have) and interpreted as a literal statement, then you really need to understand spiritual growth and faith. It's not about proof, and if every statement from the Journal of Discourses or the Times and Seasons throws you off then your faith is built on sand and not rock.

So, here's a quick history lesson. Smith was continually bombarded with hoaxes and evil men trying to catch him in a lie. The story of the Book of Lehi is the first account I can think of. The Kinderhook Plates is another. Smith was shown these 8 plates with odd writings. Smith may or may not have made a comment about them. It was recorded by William Clayton that "have seen 6 brass plates...covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph Smith] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." But did Smith really do any translation, or did Clayton just assume he did? Stories and comments like these were often published in the Times and Seasons and other church publications (often unauthorized) and sent to the Saints in Europe so they would know what was going on with the church. Later, the church took many of these stories and republished them in the Church History and even changed the stories from second hand accounts to first hand, so the Kinderhook story is written as if Smith wrote it. But the fact is, he never wrote a single word about the subject.

But after his death, and the disappearance of the plates, the church did publish the story as evidence of ancient plates existing in the Americas. They were seen as a lost link and a lost record, and for a long time they hoped to find them and have vindication of Smith's "outrageous" story about golden plates.

Well, time passed, and the story died down, and other archaeological evidence by non-Mormons unrelated to the church were discovered, so the Saints had other more tangible examples to turn to. So, when some of the plates turned up some years later, and proven to be fakes, the church acknowledged the fact and moved on. No big deal. But anti-Mormons love the story because they can give 90% of the story and make the Mormons look like fools. But it's that last 10% of the story, and a good understanding of the early Saints and their own "faith promoting" methods.

One thing it teaches me is that the church looks both to science and faith together, and are willing to admit mistakes in "folk lore" when new evidence comes out. And you can take years studying early church history, and still not get it right. Either way, if you are relying on Kinderhook faith and always trying to "prove' the gospel via archaeology, historical consistency, or even perfect leaders (including prophets) then you will quickly fall away.

[volgadon]

It goes even deeper with the translations. For example, the Kinderhook plates. I know that we're taught that Joseph never "fell for it." But if you look at the records of the Church, it was claimed they were legitimate historical records and Joseph did partly translate them. After it was revealed that they were a hoax, the Church denied it and said that the men claiming to have manufactured the Kinderhook plates could not be trusted and that the plates were real. In 1990 (I could be wrong on the date), scientists got permission to use destructive methods on the one kinderhook plate left and it was found to be from the 1800's, not an ancient record. Son now we have two instances of the Prophet failing to do what he claimed to do.

Don Brady, who had lost his testimony but then regained it, has conclusively shown that Joseph Smith attempted a scholarly translation of the Kinderhook plates with no claim to revelation.

[bytebear]

Don Brady, who had lost his testimony but then regained it, has conclusively shown that Joseph Smith attempted a scholarly translation of the Kinderhook plates with no claim to revelation.

With what evidence? The only source that makes that claim is from William Clayton which was quoted and re-quoted until it grew to folk lore status. I have read a bit of Bradley's commentary, but he still uses Clayton's "testimony" as his strongest piece of evidence. Then he claims that Smith tried to connect the glyphs in a non-spiritual translation. That may have been true. I could easily see Smith who after the Book of Mormon was well versed in ancient glyphs, but nothing indicates he did anything more than examine the plates that one time and see if there was anything recognizable in their characters. The rest is all folk lore and speculation. It seems to me the early Saints were a bit gossipy and prone to faith promoting stories. (sound familiar?)

Edited September 5, 2011 by bytebear

[volgadon]

With what evidence? The only source that makes that claim is from William Clayton which was quoted and re-quoted until it grew to folk lore status. I have read a bit of Bradley's commentary, but he still uses Clayton's "testimony" as his strongest piece of evidence. The rest is all folk lore and speculation. It seems to me the early Saints were a bit gossipy.

Considering Clayton's calling, he was in Joseph's company most of the time. The alternative you propose requires that we summarilly dismiss a piece of evidence from the prophet's innermost circle. Bradley's analysis does not require that, but takes into account all the evidence. Clayton's testimony fits a character from the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet with one on the Kinderhook plates, and the definition of that character matches Clayton's account.

[bytebear]

Considering Clayton's calling, he was in Joseph's company most of the time. The alternative you propose requires that we summarilly dismiss a piece of evidence from the prophet's innermost circle. Bradley's analysis does not require that, but takes into account all the evidence. Clayton's testimony fits a character from the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet with one on the Kinderhook plates, and the definition of that character matches Clayton's account.

Yes, that is Bradley's argument. Clayton was a close associate with Smith, so he must have been correct in his assessment.

Forget that no other contemporary (including Smith himself) never wrote one word about this supposed translation.

And your source is also flawed in that Clayton never described the characters or glyphs, at least not in the detail you presume. And it wasn't a "testimony." It was a journal entry. He was clearly more excited about the plates than Smith was, since Smith never wrote a single thing about them. But, as I said, it was a wonderful faith promoting rumor for quite some time.

[Spartan117]

No, I hadn't seen the video, but I have now. It seems that according to FAIR they made mistakes in the video. But it still doesn't negate the fact that Joseph said that it was "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

They didn't make "mistakes" IN the video, the made stuff up FOR the video.

All of the prophets have taught this, that it was written by Abraham himself, until the scholars of the Egyptian language translated it and found that it had nothing to do with Abraham and was simply a funeral text.

Except there are written accounts (Mormon and non-Mormon) of people who saw and handled the actual scroll Joseph was using to translate into the Book of Abraham. The scroll that the church said was destroyed in great Chicago fire in 1871. Then, in 1966, some museum in New York found the bits and pieces of damaged and incomplete papyri fragments (now known as the Joseph Smith Papyri) that don't match ANY written account that describes the scroll, and, oddly, don't match what is in the Pearl of Great Price.

So when you rearrange what's on the fragments, that don't match ANY first person account descriptions of what the scroll looked like, or what was on the scroll (that for 100 years had been lost in a fire but somehow ended up in a New York museum archive) and that don't match what is in the Pearl of Great Price, you have a smoking gun? Really?

I'm just sick and tired of all of the justifications from the apologist side.

That's actually kind of clear. You seem to be warming up to the anti-Mormon side, and the apologetics are getting in the way of that for you.

I don't know what to do anymore.

It seems like you're looking for a way out, to be honest. You're trying to find a reason to leave, or something out of place so you'll be okay with leaving. Then YOU'LL be justified. If you want to find something "wrong" with the church, then you will. And that's what I see. You don't want the Book of Abraham to be true, you want someone to agree with you and tell you you're right.

You don't want advice, you want corroboration.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Spartan117

[Jenamarie]

It seems like you're looking for a way out, to be honest. You're trying to find a reason to leave, or something out of place so you'll be okay with leaving. Then YOU'LL be justified. If you want to find something "wrong" with the church, then you will. And that's what I see. You don't the Book of Abraham to be true, you want someone to agree with you and tell you you're right.

You don't want advice, you want corroboration.

I don't know that this is exactly helpful. I've been in a "questioning" position before, and was told that I was "looking for a way out". I must have some sin or lifestyle-choice that was out of sync with the gospel that I wanted to feel okay with pursuing.

Being in a questioning place is very uncomfortable. The "idea" you had in your head for years and years and years of what the church is and was is shattered, and you're left trying to rediscover something you thought you'd had all figured out. I had tons of questions that all seemed rather disjointed at times, and some that people assumed I "MUST" have picked up from some anti-mormon site or literature, and I was often highly skeptical of the "too neat" answers, or answers that required a lot of assumptions (like the journal entry about the Kinderhook plates, expecting to disreguard it because "Well, Joseph HIMSELF never said anything about it." Why can't we just admit that perhaps Joseph flubbed up a time or two?

And yes, the apologetics did sometimes bug me. Just as anti's can create strawmen arguments, or come to head-scratching conflusions, so did some of the apologetic articles I read. Sometimes trying to bulster a flagging testimony can lead to what looks like a grasping at straws.

All that said, I DID regain my Testimony of the Gospel. It was finally the Spirit itself that confirmed it for me, but for a long time my mistrust of the Church that I'd thought I knew kept that Witness from occuring, and being told by others that "I must be wanting out" only held it off further, because nothing could have been further from the truth!

[volgadon]

Yes, that is Bradley's argument. Clayton was a close associate with Smith, so he must have been correct in his assessment.

Forget that no other contemporary (including Smith himself) never wrote one word about this supposed translation.

Clayton was Smith's clerk and scribe!

And your source is also flawed in that Clayton never described the characters or glyphs, at least not in the detail you presume.

Clayton's description of the translation matches the content of a figure which is very similar to one on the Kinderhook plates, so your rebuttal here really is irrelevant.

And it wasn't a "testimony." It was a journal entry.

If you'd reread what I wrote you'll see that the only appearance of "testimony" is in reference to Don Bradley, not William Clayton.

He was clearly more excited about the plates than Smith was, since Smith never wrote a single thing about them. But, as I said, it was a wonderful faith promoting rumor for quite some time.

He didn't like writing, period.

[volgadon]

That's actually kind of clear. You seem to be warming up to the anti-Mormon side, and the apologetics are getting in the way of that for you.

To be perfectly frank, critics of the BoA have a very strong case. There is no use getting around the fact that most of the elements in the book could have been known by Joseph. That being said, there certainly is evidence for ancient origins. It ultimately boils down to faith. There is however no need to judge or push someone away.

[Spartan117]

I don't know that this is exactly helpful.

It was meant to be honest. I think that's what would be helpful.

I've been in a "questioning" position before, and was told that I was "looking for a way out". I must have some sin or lifestyle-choice that was out of sync with the gospel that I wanted to feel okay with pursuing.

Well, that isn't the case here. And I never said, or even thought, any of those things about this member and his situation. And I didn't mean for anything to come across as accusatory, but I still think I was right in my assumption about where he's at and what he's doing. And I also think addressing that would be more helpful than spoon feeding him answers to questions he isn't going to listen to.

Why can't we just admit that perhaps Joseph flubbed up a time or two?

I guess it would depend what we has flubbing about. Do you have something specific in mind?

and being told by others that "I must be wanting out" only held it off further, because nothing could have been further from the truth!

I said he was looking for a way out, not wanting. I don't think he "wants" out, I think he wants to reconcile how he's feeling with what he believes. Finding an "out" is the quickest and easiest way to resolve the conflict. That isn't a commentary on what kind of person he is, or anything like that. We are counseled to receive our own confirmation about everything, from the scriptures to General Conference. I want him to find that confirmation and regain his testimony, not leave the church with a false feeling of a clear conscience.

[DKM88]

So, basically, you are going to reject the content of the Book of Abraham because someone quoted Smith as saying, "the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand" and even if Smith said that (which he may not have) and interpreted as a literal statement, then you really need to understand spiritual growth and faith. It's not about proof, and if every statement from the Journal of Discourses or the Times and Seasons throws you off then your faith is built on sand and not rock.

So, here's a quick history lesson. Smith was continually bombarded with hoaxes and evil men trying to catch him in a lie. The story of the Book of Lehi is the first account I can think of. The Kinderhook Plates is another. Smith was shown these 8 plates with odd writings. Smith may or may not have made a comment about them. It was recorded by William Clayton that "have seen 6 brass plates...covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph Smith] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." But did Smith really do any translation, or did Clayton just assume he did? Stories and comments like these were often published in the Times and Seasons and other church publications (often unauthorized) and sent to the Saints in Europe so they would know what was going on with the church. Later, the church took many of these stories and republished them in the Church History and even changed the stories from second hand accounts to first hand, so the Kinderhook story is written as if Smith wrote it. But the fact is, he never wrote a single word about the subject.

But after his death, and the disappearance of the plates, the church did publish the story as evidence of ancient plates existing in the Americas. They were seen as a lost link and a lost record, and for a long time they hoped to find them and have vindication of Smith's "outrageous" story about golden plates.

Well, time passed, and the story died down, and other archaeological evidence by non-Mormons unrelated to the church were discovered, so the Saints had other more tangible examples to turn to. So, when some of the plates turned up some years later, and proven to be fakes, the church acknowledged the fact and moved on. No big deal. But anti-Mormons love the story because they can give 90% of the story and make the Mormons look like fools. But it's that last 10% of the story, and a good understanding of the early Saints and their own "faith promoting" methods.

One thing it teaches me is that the church looks both to science and faith together, and are willing to admit mistakes in "folk lore" when new evidence comes out. And you can take years studying early church history, and still not get it right. Either way, if you are relying on Kinderhook faith and always trying to "prove' the gospel via archaeology, historical consistency, or even perfect leaders (including prophets) then you will quickly fall away.

Smith said it, and it was wrong. He said it was from Abraham and it told of his story in Egypt, and it didn't. There's no getting around that. So yeah, it does kind of screw things up.

Thanks for the condescending history lesson, but I know all about Church history and what went on. The difference, it seems, is that I've read all the accounts given, not just the apologetic account. And it seems that the more I look into these things, the apologetic accounts are seeming to hold less and less weight.

If the gospel is true, wouldn't it be proved by archaeology? I don't get it. How can so many people see things that don't make sense or are blatantly wrong and still say, "I've got faith, so I believe 1+1=3, because it feels good when I say it." Don't you see how asinine that is?

[DKM88]

They didn't make "mistakes" IN the video, the made stuff up FOR the video.

Except there are written accounts (Mormon and non-Mormon) of people who saw and handled the actual scroll Joseph was using to translate into the Book of Abraham. The scroll that the church said was destroyed in great Chicago fire in 1871. Then, in 1966, some museum in New York found the bits and pieces of damaged and incomplete papyri fragments (now known as the Joseph Smith Papyri) that don't match ANY written account that describes the scroll, and, oddly, don't match what is in the Pearl of Great Price.

So when you rearrange what's on the fragments, that don't match ANY first person account descriptions of what the scroll looked like, or what was on the scroll (that for 100 years had been lost in a fire but somehow ended up in a New York museum archive) and that don't match what is in the Pearl of Great Price, you have a smoking gun? Really?

That's actually kind of clear. You seem to be warming up to the anti-Mormon side, and the apologetics are getting in the way of that for you.

It seems like you're looking for a way out, to be honest. You're trying to find a reason to leave, or something out of place so you'll be okay with leaving. Then YOU'LL be justified. If you want to find something "wrong" with the church, then you will. And that's what I see. You don't want the Book of Abraham to be true, you want someone to agree with you and tell you you're right.

You don't want advice, you want corroboration.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the scroll doesn't match what's in the Pearl of Great Price. If you are talking about what it says, then obviously you're right. It doesn't talk about Abraham. But if you're talking about the actual scroll, the fascimile in the PofGP is exactly what we see in the Joseph Smith Papyri. The Church readily admits that this is the papyri. The only differences is where there were damages and tears, which made it even more obvious that Joseph screwed it up, ie the head of the "priest" should have been the head of a jackal, not a human. But Joseph didn't know this, the piece was missing, and he assumed it was a human, so he put a human head.

I can accept the fact that the Book of Abraham is way off base. I can accept the fact that Joseph got a bit too into it and messed up, translating when he wasn't told to by God. Maybe he just thought too much of himself, I don't know. The problem I have is the Church still considers this holy scripture when it's proven to be false.

[volgadon]

If the gospel is true, wouldn't it be proved by archaeology?

How is archaeology meant to prove that Jesus came into the world according to God's will, to atone and die for the sins of men, and that by repentance, baptism and enduring to the end people will be held blameless by God? Perhaps you mean something entirely different by "gospel."

Archaeology finds objects and records their location. That is it. All the rest is interpretation, frequently contested at that.

Edited September 5, 2011 by volgadon

[DKM88]

How is archaeology meant to prove that Jesus came into the world according to God's will, to atone and die for the sins of men, and that by repentance, baptism and enduring to the end people will be held blameless by God? Perhaps you mean something entirely different by "gospel."

Archaeology finds objects and records their location. That is it. All the rest is interpretation, frequently contested at that.

What I mean is the historicity of the gospel. Of course nobody can prove or disprove Jesus' divine mission. What I mean is this:

1. If the Book of Mormon is a literal history, there would be archaeological proof, which there isn't.

2. If the Book of Abraham was true, the translation would prove to be correct (not exactly archaeology, I know)

I didn't bring up archaeology, the other guy did. I was simply saying that if I tell you that there under my house there is an ancient Indian burial ground because God told me there was one, then you excavate it and find nothing, but I tell you to still believe me, you probably will think I'm either crazy or some sort of a con man.

I can accept that the gospel is true (or even that it isn't) and still be an active, productive member of the Church without accepting all the BS that requires so many mental gymnastics to accept it or things that I'd just have to ignore.