Coming to terms with the Book of Abraham


DKM88
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Ok, so you don't mean the gospel at all, you mean the restoration.

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

There never is archaeological proof for anything. What would you consider "archaeological proof" of the Book of Mormon?

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

Extreme oversimplification. It ignores the religious and literary world of the papyrii. I am not saying that the evidence is enough to overwhelm 19th c. origins if you are set on believing that, but it can at least provide you with a reasonable basis for suspending disbelief long enough to seek out a spiritual confirmation.

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 would investigate further. What do you mean by burial ground, on what basis, etc. I would also researh burial grounds extensively to see what I might be missing. I'd form theories and test them.

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.

Alright, if that is all you are ready to accept right now then keep on being the best member you can be. That is all we should expect, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tough when you first realize that your Dad is not the superman you thought he was. And then with a little life experience & maybe some kids of your own, you begin to know the magnificent man he really is, without the false ideas of childhood.

Same with the Church. Time to grow into maturity. I feel for ya, it can be a tough road.

Personal Beliefs » HiJolly comes clean » LDS Social Network

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clayton was Smith's clerk and scribe!

And?

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.

You're going to have to give some reference to what he actually said, because as far as I know there is no description of this "content" that you are attesting.

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.

As I said, there is one very short journal entry, which Bradley has elevated to near scriptural status.

He didn't like writing, period.

Which is why using Clayton as a "witness" is doubly deceitful, as it is used to show that Smith must have been dictating this to Clayton, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I am talking about the Kinderhook plates, not the Book of Abraham. You appear the be confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you don't mean the gospel at all, you mean the restoration.

There never is archaeological proof for anything. What would you consider "archaeological proof" of the Book of Mormon?

Extreme oversimplification. It ignores the religious and literary world of the papyrii. I am not saying that the evidence is enough to overwhelm 19th c. origins if you are set on believing that, but it can at least provide you with a reasonable basis for suspending disbelief long enough to seek out a spiritual confirmation.

I would investigate further. What do you mean by burial ground, on what basis, etc. I would also researh burial grounds extensively to see what I might be missing. I'd form theories and test them.

Alright, if that is all you are ready to accept right now then keep on being the best member you can be. That is all we should expect, really.

I'm not sure if you are mocking me or if you are serious when you talk about archaeological proof. There is absolutely archaeological proof for things. For example, the Book of Mormon claims that there are certain weapons, chariots, animals, food, that only existed in the old world and has never shown up in any archaeological dig. If we found archaeological evidence that steel swords were used by civilizations in the Americas, that would be archaeological proof that at least one thing that the Book of Mormon claims is true.

Again, I'm not sure how my statement is an oversimplification of the papyri. I think that the issues with the papyri are pretty straightforward.

As far as the burial ground analogy, let's say you did all of your extra research and you couldn't justify or twist my words in a way that would confirm there was an actual burial ground under my house. What then? Do you just say that I was speaking metaphorically, even if I said that there was a literal burial ground? Would you say that even though there wasn't a burial ground, God told me there was one for some other purpose that you can learn from, therefore accepting me a spiritual person and not a liar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about the Kinderhook plates, not the Book of Abraham. You appear the be confused.

Right. And you were taking my Book of Abraham quote (straight from the Pearl of Great Price) and apparently applying it to the Kinderhook plates. So it appears that we're not on the same page (or plate, if you will).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Except that the facsimiles are only a small portion of what Smith had. He had an entire mummy, and more than just the two facsimiles which were probably the only pictoral items in the bunch - which is why they were published. He may have gotten the description of the picture wrong, but that was not part of the translation, but more speculation and understandably connections with one record to another. It still is a fascinating connection when you really study it. Smith came up with doctrinal and historical concepts that would take many decades for archaeologists and religious historians to connect. It's far more than just "he got the picture wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tough when you first realize that your Dad is not the superman you thought he was. And then with a little life experience & maybe some kids of your own, you begin to know the magnificent man he really is, without the false ideas of childhood.

Same with the Church. Time to grow into maturity. I feel for ya, it can be a tough road.

Personal Beliefs » HiJolly comes clean » LDS Social Network

HiJolly

I appreciate the response, but I'm not sure this applies to me. I consider myself very mature in the gospel. And I do have problems with the teachings. I thought for a long time it was just the way I interpreted them. But I've matured to the point that I no longer believe that. It seems from your thread that you had questions, but learned to turn it off and just believe. For example, it was God's will that Joseph Smith married women that were already married to faithful members of the Church. Do you accept that statement? I don't. I think there are a lot of things that you were probably learning that you've shut off. If that works for you, by all means, continue on your path. I can't do that, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that the facsimiles are only a small portion of what Smith had. He had an entire mummy, and more than just the two facsimiles which were probably the only pictoral items in the bunch - which is why they were published. He may have gotten the description of the picture wrong, but that was not part of the translation, but more speculation and understandably connections with one record to another. It still is a fascinating connection when you really study it. Smith came up with doctrinal and historical concepts that would take many decades for archaeologists and religious historians to connect. It's far more than just "he got the picture wrong".

Lol, but that's just the thing. The papyri really are a bunch of pictures and symbols. He got the picture wrong. How is telling us the story on an Egyptian papyri any different than translation? It IS translation. He translated a picture that the Egyptians understood in the hieroglyphic language and told us what it meant. And he was wrong. I accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you are mocking me or if you are serious when you talk about archaeological proof. There is absolutely archaeological proof for things. For example, the Book of Mormon claims that there are certain weapons, chariots, animals, food, that only existed in the old world and has never shown up in any archaeological dig. If we found archaeological evidence that steel swords were used by civilizations in the Americas, that would be archaeological proof that at least one thing that the Book of Mormon claims is true.

Again, I'm not sure how my statement is an oversimplification of the papyri. I think that the issues with the papyri are pretty straightforward.

As far as the burial ground analogy, let's say you did all of your extra research and you couldn't justify or twist my words in a way that would confirm there was an actual burial ground under my house. What then? Do you just say that I was speaking metaphorically, even if I said that there was a literal burial ground? Would you say that even though there wasn't a burial ground, God told me there was one for some other purpose that you can learn from, therefore accepting me a spiritual person and not a liar?

The Bible also talks about unicorns, talking donkeys, and a slew of other unprovable events. There are volumes written about it from both the negative and apologetic sides. In fact, this is why most questioning Mormons become atheists because as the study Christianity, the same flaws in Mormonism exist in Christianity, in fact all religions which rely on historical evidence for faith. Reminds me of the movie Contact where you can't really know until you experience, and despite evidence (like hours of static on a recording device) you still just can;t believe. There is plenty of evidence out there, but there is no and will never be any proof. And a testimony built without spiritual experience and only upon evidence and a search for proof will falter, every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, but that's just the thing. The papyri really are a bunch of pictures and symbols. He got the picture wrong. How is telling us the story on an Egyptian papyri any different than translation? It IS translation. He translated a picture that the Egyptians understood in the hieroglyphic language and told us what it meant. And he was wrong. I accept that.

Do you believe Moses spoke to a burning bush? Did it have to be a burning bush? Do you believe the Urim and Thummin worked on scientific principals? what about the Leohona? And do you think God needed for those prophets to use those exact tools, or were they merely symbols and tokens to help the prophet receive prophecy? And could the papyrus simply be a tool, a catalyst to revelation? Something a prophet would understand and help him open the flood gates of prophecy? And what of the Book of Moses. The catalyst there was the Book of Genesis. No papyrus, no translation, simply pure revelation. So, do you reject the prophet and the prophecy because of the method of procurement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible also talks about unicorns, talking donkeys, and a slew of other unprovable events. There are volumes written about it from both the negative and apologetic sides. In fact, this is why most questioning Mormons become atheists because as the study Christianity, the same flaws in Mormonism exist in Christianity, in fact all religions which rely on historical evidence for faith. Reminds me of the movie Contact where you can't really know until you experience, and despite evidence (like hours of static on a recording device) you still just can;t believe. There is plenty of evidence out there, but there is no and will never be any proof. And a testimony built without spiritual experience and only upon evidence and a search for proof will falter, every time.

You're right. And the Bible is almost as faulty as the Book of Mormon. The difference is the Bible refers to places that we have found substantial archaeological evidence for. Of course, there is still the necessary faith required to believe that the stories are divine in nature. The Book of Mormon doesn't even provide archaeological evidence. The Bible is not entirely correct. Neither is the Book of Mormon. Here's the problem. as GBH stated many times, either everything is true or its all a farce. No middle ground.

And I have had what you call "spiritual experiences." I've felt them from reading the Book of Mormon. I've felt it while reading other novels. I've felt it while watching Braveheart and Rudy. There really is no way to tell the differences between those feelings. Unless you can enlighten me on the intricacies of it all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe Moses spoke to a burning bush? Did it have to be a burning bush? Do you believe the Urim and Thummin worked on scientific principals? what about the Leohona? And do you think God needed for those prophets to use those exact tools, or were they merely symbols and tokens to help the prophet receive prophecy? And could the papyrus simply be a tool, a catalyst to revelation? Something a prophet would understand and help him open the flood gates of prophecy? And what of the Book of Moses. The catalyst there was the Book of Genesis. No papyrus, no translation, simply pure revelation. So, do you reject the prophet and the prophecy because of the method of procurement?

No, I don't believe Moses spoke to a burning bush. It's possible that it could have been a dream, but a burning bush is a bit childish. We understand magic isn't real, so the modern world rejects such stories. Back in the day it was perfectly acceptable for someone to read that and accept it.

See what you're doing? You're justifying the lack of evidence. I completely understand where you're coming from. I really do. I just can't do that anymore. Like I said before, 1+1=2, not 3. If I'm told by a Prophet of God that something is a literal truth, I can't discover that it's not and just say "oh, well maybe he didn't mean it that way." Why would God choose such a method to deliver revelation? It doesn't make sense. Why would he deliver something to Joseph, knowing that Joseph had no ability to translate it, but tell him that he did, have Joseph receive revelation, knowing that Joseph had no idea what he was "translating" was simply revelation and he wasn't translating anything, only to have it discovered over 100 years later that Joseph was completely wrong? Do you see what I'm saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. And the Bible is almost as faulty as the Book of Mormon. The difference is the Bible refers to places that we have found substantial archaeological evidence for. Of course, there is still the necessary faith required to believe that the stories are divine in nature. The Book of Mormon doesn't even provide archaeological evidence. The Bible is not entirely correct. Neither is the Book of Mormon. Here's the problem. as GBH stated many times, either everything is true or its all a farce. No middle ground.

And I have had what you call "spiritual experiences." I've felt them from reading the Book of Mormon. I've felt it while reading other novels. I've felt it while watching Braveheart and Rudy. There really is no way to tell the differences between those feelings. Unless you can enlighten me on the intricacies of it all?

Archaeology relating to the Book of Mormon is ridiculously recent. 100 years compared to thousands for the Bible. And the Book of Mormon has no bearing to start with. Assume all of Europe and Asia was unknown, and you had to figure out where Jerusalem was. You think it would be an easy task? and would you have critics?

For me, the Holy Ghost is clearly distinct from feeling an uplifting emotion from a movie or music. It is far more powerful. I feel it as I write this note, a deep warm feeling in soul that I know these words are true. It is not the same feeling I get from watching Rudy. I hope you can have that assurance too, but until then, please rely on other testimonies and let them shore you up in times of doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't believe Moses spoke to a burning bush. It's possible that it could have been a dream, but a burning bush is a bit childish. We understand magic isn't real, so the modern world rejects such stories. Back in the day it was perfectly acceptable for someone to read that and accept it.

See what you're doing? You're justifying the lack of evidence. I completely understand where you're coming from. I really do. I just can't do that anymore. Like I said before, 1+1=2, not 3. If I'm told by a Prophet of God that something is a literal truth, I can't discover that it's not and just say "oh, well maybe he didn't mean it that way." Why would God choose such a method to deliver revelation? It doesn't make sense. Why would he deliver something to Joseph, knowing that Joseph had no ability to translate it, but tell him that he did, have Joseph receive revelation, knowing that Joseph had no idea what he was "translating" was simply revelation and he wasn't translating anything, only to have it discovered over 100 years later that Joseph was completely wrong? Do you see what I'm saying?

The correct question is, "When has God ever worked any other way?" He works through doubt, so you won't rely on science for your answers. He is calling you to find Him, to seek the spirit for your answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archaeology relating to the Book of Mormon is ridiculously recent. 100 years compared to thousands for the Bible. And the Book of Mormon has no bearing to start with. Assume all of Europe and Asia was unknown, and you had to figure out where Jerusalem was. You think it would be an easy task? and would you have critics?

For me, the Holy Ghost is clearly distinct from feeling an uplifting emotion from a movie or music. It is far more powerful. I feel it as I write this note, a deep warm feeling in soul that I know these words are true. It is not the same feeling I get from watching Rudy. I hope you can have that assurance too, but until then, please rely on other testimonies and let them shore you up in times of doubt.

The archaeological methods, technology, etc., are much more advanced now. There is no reason, in my mind, that at least a shred of evidence for the Book of Mormon shouldn't have shown up already. People were searching for Biblical evidence with stone age technology compared to what we have today. Dr. Michael Coe recently spoke about this. I leave the possibility open that there may be some evidence that shows up, but I firmly believe that with the civilizations described, there would already be something that has come up, but there's hasn't.

As far as the spirit is concerned, maybe God has never deemed me worthy of his holy spirit. Or maybe I'm spiritually dead and I can't tell the difference between emotions and the spirit. You'd think that our loving Heavenly Father would provide a more foolproof way to help his children know he's there, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The archaeological methods, technology, etc., are much more advanced now. There is no reason, in my mind, that at least a shred of evidence for the Book of Mormon shouldn't have shown up already. People were searching for Biblical evidence with stone age technology compared to what we have today. Dr. Michael Coe recently spoke about this. I leave the possibility open that there may be some evidence that shows up, but I firmly believe that with the civilizations described, there would already be something that has come up, but there's hasn't.

As far as the spirit is concerned, maybe God has never deemed me worthy of his holy spirit. Or maybe I'm spiritually dead and I can't tell the difference between emotions and the spirit. You'd think that our loving Heavenly Father would provide a more foolproof way to help his children know he's there, though.

How many shreds do you want? FAIR has collected a ton of evidence found in recent years. Maybe you have read through all the evidence and found flaws enough to call it less than a shred, but I would say there are far more than shreds out there if you are willing to accept the evidence. If it really only would take a shred, you would be a true blue believer for sure. Honestly, I think no amount of evidence would satisfy you.

But what worries me more is that you will find enough evidence to keep your testimony, until it too is shattered by some other flaw or criticism. Such a testimony will always be shaky. But, we are diverging on the subject, and this is turning into a discussion on what constitutes faith and a testimony.

There is a verse in the Doctrine and Covenants (can't remember right now) but it basically says that a firm testimony is a gift and some people are not meant to receive it but are given the gift to rely on others testimonies to lift them up. Maybe that is you. Maybe you are a doubter, and you must learn to rely on those around you who have that testimony. Either way, I hope you find what you are seeking.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many shreds do you want? FAIR has collected a ton of evidence found in recent years. Maybe you have read through all the evidence and found flaws enough to call it less than a shred, but I would say there are far more than shreds out there if you are willing to accept the evidence. If it really only would take a shred, you would be a true blue believer for sure. Honestly, I think no amount of evidence would satisfy you.

I've read through the FAIR evidence, and it's really just a bunch of far-fetched grabs at trying to connect archaeology to the Book of Mormon. For example, horses and tapirs? Come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the thread says "Coming to terms with the Book of Abraham" and it seems that all the advice given has already been tried (ad nauseum apparently), so what more can we do to help? What more can we recommend? What more can we explain? I feel a little like the father of the prodigal son, who has no power but to pray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the thread says "Coming to terms with the Book of Abraham" and it seems that all the advice given has already been tried (ad nauseum apparently), so what more can we do to help? What more can we recommend? What more can we explain? I feel a little like the father of the prodigal son, who has no power but to pray.

Nobody has given me any advice that makes sense. Sometimes you can't just pray your way out of things. At least I'm not able to. And it appears you're right. You have no power but to pray for my soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share