Book of Abraham and testimony

[StrangeRoads]

Did the merciless debunking of the Book of Abraham affect anyone's testimony?

It affected mine to the point where I officially resigned from the Church a few years ago (which I now regret and wish I had not done).

And, in this information age, how do you remain strong in your testimony in the face of all the negativity, particularly online?

[Just_A_Guy]

I trust you're already aware of FAIR and the late FARMS? They had some pretty good resources in this area.

Personally, I'm pretty much at the point where I don't view Abraham as a literal translation of the Chandler scrolls--just as the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible wasn't a literal "translation" of any particular document, and contains some additions that likely weren't in any Biblical manuscript. Rather, I see the manuscripts as a catalyst for revelation through which an ancient sequence of true historical events--the written of record of which, if it ever existed, is now long lost to us--came to Smith by revelation and was duly transcribed.

I know some LDS apologists are fond of making the "but we don't really have the full scrolls" argument; but given that we do appear to have the portion from which Facsimile 1 originated I think these arguments smack of straw-grasping.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Did the merciless debunking of the Book of Abraham affect anyone's testimony?

It affected mine to the point where I officially resigned from the Church a few years ago (which I now regret and wish I had not done).

And, in this information age, how do you remain strong in your testimony in the face of all the negativity, particularly online?

I know not of the particular "merciless debunking" you refer to. I have heard the Book of Abraham criticized in many aspects, from its writing style to its interpretation of the figures. For the most part, the criticisms range from very naive ("the heiroglyphs COULDN'T mean what Joseph Smith claimed, because we know EXACTLY what they mean, and they cannot possibly have multiple meanings!!!!!") to outright lies. An exception is the seemingly anachronistic reference to "Chaldeans", a Hellenistic term from the 6th century BC that is assumed to have been back-applied to Abraham by the OT authors, but that inexplicably shows up in the supposedly contemporary account by Abraham himself, many centuries before the Chaldean dynasty. There are any number of explanations for this, but it is a puzzler for those of us who believe the Book of Abraham to be authentic scripture. In any case, 95% of the criticism of the Book of Abraham is at least uninformed and at most outright fabrications.

Testimony is, at its root, revelation from God. This is not directly dependent on secular learning, so supposed evidence that contradicts belief is not immediately threatening or even relevant. Approaching all learning with an attitude of humility has been, for me, a great help in not feeling threatened every time some bozo makes a proclamation that "proves" Church doctrine "false" -- almost all of which soon demonstrate themselves as being false, or else demonstrate that our previous understanding was itself faulty. (Consider the traditional, well-established interpretation of the Book of Mormon narrative as covering the entirety of the Americas, both North and South, when a careful and critical reading of the book itself would quickly dispel any such naive notion.)

[StrangeRoads]

Thank you both for the excellent posts!

[Jenamarie]

I know some LDS apologists are fond of making the "but we don't really have the full scrolls" argument; but given that we do appear to have the portion from which Facsimile 1 originated I think these arguments smack of straw-grasping.

At Education Week this year members of the Maxwell Institute addressed this saying we *don't* have all of them, and the ones we do have don't match up with the witness accounts of what the scrolls looked like (there were shorter scrolls, which we have, and one longer one which is said to be the one the Book of Abraham came from, and that one was lost in the Chicago Fire). Is this in dispute now?

[estradling75]

Not really for me... Because if I have to choose between what God has taught me through study and prayer and what some random guy howling on the internet says? Well I find that a very easy choice to make

[Traveler]

Did the merciless debunking of the Book of Abraham affect anyone's testimony?

It affected mine to the point where I officially resigned from the Church a few years ago (which I now regret and wish I had not done).

And, in this information age, how do you remain strong in your testimony in the face of all the negativity, particularly online?

I have long been a student of history and ancient literary forms. The Book of Abraham follows the form and format of an ancient Egyptian literary form of the ancient Pythagorean philosophy of ratios. In contrast one can read the 88 section of the Doctrine and Covenants (also written through Joseph Smith) and see the contrasting Newtonian philosophy covering basically the same doctrine of Abraham chapter 3. Since the Pythagorean impact on Egypt would not be understood for a hundred years after Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham - it is difficult for Joseph's critics to explain that.

Joseph saw correlation between the Egyptian papyri (now called the Book of Breathings) and the impact the attempt to sacrifice Abraham had on ancient Egypt. Especially in the Stella presented. The fact that the actual date of the papyri dated much later is of little difference than correlations Josephus saw between the ancient kingdom of Babylon (tower of Babel) and the Roman empire.

There are certain things scholars hold back - For example do you know the ancient name of the Jewish settlement that left the Dead Sea Scrolls to us? The ancient name was Damascus. That little fact is problematic for those that claim the Biblical books as unchangeable cannon.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

At Education Week this year members of the Maxwell Institute addressed this saying we *don't* have all of them, and the ones we do have don't match up with the witness accounts of what the scrolls looked like (there were shorter scrolls, which we have, and one longer one which is said to be the one the Book of Abraham came from, and that one was lost in the Chicago Fire). Is this in dispute now?

For a discussion on the length of the papyri, see this article. It appears that there's a lot of guesswork involved on this issue, since we don't have a complete "scroll" and can only make educated guesses as to how long the "Scroll of Hor" was.

For me, the elephant in the room is that Facsimile 1 in our PoGP unquestionably depicts the attempted human sacrifice of Abraham. Abraham 1:12 refers to a "representation" of this event "at the commencement of this record". This same image appears to be present in the fragments of the Chandler/Joseph Smith Papyri that survive to this day. I've not seen that issue be convincingly dealt with, and it's why I don't think the "wrong scroll" argument holds much water.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

To be honest, I haven't bothered to study much about the Book of Abraham debates.

It's just not where my testimony lies.

[annewandering]

I read that the scrolls didnt match the Book of Abraham. It took me a bit to understand, for myself, but have come to the conclusion that the Book of Abraham is one of the most compelling books of scripture we have. The information in it is enormous. To me it matters little how God revealed it to Joseph. For all I know those arent even the right set of scrolls. I dont know or really care. The Book is true scripture. Now that is important to me.

[mikbone]

The book of Abraham speaks for itself.

Facsimile 2, and the intrepretation is awesome.

It matters not to me that Joseph Smith needed a tangeable relic to bolster his faith to receive revelation.

An excellent response is found in the ensign

I Have a Question - Ensign July 1988 - ensign

[volgadon]

There are certain things scholars hold back - For example do you know the ancient name of the Jewish settlement that left the Dead Sea Scrolls to us? The ancient name was Damascus. That little fact is problematic for those that claim the Biblical books as unchangeable cannon.

The Traveler

This has been discussed. http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/38198-qumran-quran.html

[Blackmarch]

Did the merciless debunking of the Book of Abraham affect anyone's testimony?

It affected mine to the point where I officially resigned from the Church a few years ago (which I now regret and wish I had not done).

And, in this information age, how do you remain strong in your testimony in the face of all the negativity, particularly online?

Worried until i looked into it. all the debunking takes on waaayyyy too many assumptions to come to its conclusion(s).

[Traveler]

This has been discussed. http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/38198-qumran-quran.html

Oh yes that discussion – where you tried to discredit Josephus account because he was a Galilean and you gave unwavering credence to Pliny the Elder whose primary connection to the Jews was Nero and Pliny avoided Nero by staying almost exclusively in Rome that that era. Was Pliny ever even in Palestine? Pliny most likely was relying completely on prejudicial 2nd hand Roman propaganda of the time that was somewhat inaccurate even according to the New Testament writers.

I think we did conclude that Qumran was not an entirely the Essen society that we are led to believe as mainstream Judicial or official Jewish documents. It is interesting to me that all modern discoveries are of obscure or questionable origin usually claimed to be Essen or Gnostic. As though mainstream anything Jewish ever made successful attempts to preserve their literary heritage. Rameumpton was also consumed that Qumran was not Christian because Qumran predated Christianity by 300 years. What both of you overlooked is that the Qumran society was obsessed with the right of Levitt only control and officiating in legitimate Jewish sacrifices and ritual at the inner courts of the temple – which is a direct connection to Zacharias.

But my only point is that seldom is Qumran referred to as Damascus and that when Damascus is mentioned it is indirectly in reference to documents rather than named place and that there was a deliberate effort to obscure or hide documents from public knowledge what failed only because of the internet and putting photos of DSS manuscripts (that the DSS society lost) on the internet. Also neither you nor Rameumpton ever answered my question of how Paul could be arresting Roman subjects in a distant providence disconnected to Jewish authority without Roman authority for capital crimes.

The Traveler

[volgadon]

Oh yes that discussion – where you tried to discredit Josephus account because he was a Galilean and you gave unwavering credence to Pliny the Elder whose primary connection to the Jews was Nero and Pliny avoided Nero by staying almost exclusively in Rome that that era. Was Pliny ever even in Palestine? Pliny most likely was relying completely on prejudicial 2nd hand Roman propaganda of the time that was somewhat inaccurate even according to the New Testament writers.

No, I mean that thread where you made wildly inaccurate claims about Josephus and the Essenes. My supposed "unwavering credence" to Pliny the Elder is another example of such inaccurate statements. You claimed that Josephus was the only ancient source to speak of Essenes. False. Whatever else you want to make of it, Pliny mentioned Essenes, and mentioned them in the area of Qumran.

I think we did conclude that Qumran was not an entirely the Essen society that we are led to believe as mainstream Judicial or official Jewish documents.

Why is judicial capitolised?

It is interesting to me that all modern discoveries are of obscure or questionable origin usually claimed to be Essen or Gnostic.

Please be more specific. Which discoveries? Who is making the claims? What does this have to do with anything?

As though mainstream anything Jewish ever made successful attempts to preserve their literary heritage.

Would you mind clarifying, ever or never?

Rameumpton was also consumed that Qumran was not Christian because Qumran predated Christianity by 300 years.

I would call that a pretty self-evident point.

What both of you overlooked is that the Qumran society was obsessed with the right of Levitt only control and officiating in legitimate Jewish sacrifices and ritual at the inner courts of the temple – which is a direct connection to Zacharias.

But my only point is that seldom is Qumran referred to as Damascus

Because there is practically no evidence that Damascus was ever Qumran's name. Even if we accept the identification of the Damascus in the Damascus document with Qumran, there is no reason to assume that this was ever a real name and not a typological one, such as identifying Rome with Edom, or the code names used in the D&C.

and that when Damascus is mentioned it is indirectly in reference to documents rather than named place

I'm not sure I follow.

and that there was a deliberate effort to obscure or hide documents from public knowledge what failed only because of the internet and putting photos of DSS manuscripts (that the DSS society lost) on the internet.

Right, we are to accept that the entire reason for many of the DSS being restricted was the mention of Damascus? Something that was known back in 1910? Of course, it couldn't have been simple power play over which professor and which university get the prestige of granting access to the documents to scholars?

Also neither you nor Rameumpton ever answered my question of how Paul could be arresting Roman subjects in a distant providence disconnected to Jewish authority without Roman authority for capital crimes.

The Traveler

Who were the letters from that Paul carried? The high priest. Who was the high priest? Rome's right-hand man in Judaea and Galilee. What was Jesus crucified for? Political unrest. This might not have been strictly kosher, but why wouldn't the Roman leaders have supported the high priest in squashing percieved threats to their rule? Assuming, of course, that they were fully informed, rather than this being a private initiative carried out between the high priest and local Jewish communal leaders?

[Traveler]

No, I mean that thread where you made wildly inaccurate claims about Josephus and the Essenes. My supposed "unwavering credence" to Pliny the Elder is another example of such inaccurate statements. You claimed that Josephus was the only ancient source to speak of Essenes. False. Whatever else you want to make of it, Pliny mentioned Essenes, and mentioned them in the area of Qumran.

Why is judicial capitolised?

Please be more specific. Which discoveries? Who is making the claims? What does this have to do with anything?

Would you mind clarifying, ever or never?

I would call that a pretty self-evident point.

What both of you overlooked is that the Qumran society was obsessed with the right of Levitt only control and officiating in legitimate Jewish sacrifices and ritual at the inner courts of the temple – which is a direct connection to Zacharias.

Because there is practically no evidence that Damascus was ever Qumran's name. Even if we accept the identification of the Damascus in the Damascus document with Qumran, there is no reason to assume that this was ever a real name and not a typological one, such as identifying Rome with Edom, or the code names used in the D&C.

I'm not sure I follow.

Right, we are to accept that the entire reason for many of the DSS being restricted was the mention of Damascus? Something that was known back in 1910? Of course, it couldn't have been simple power play over which professor and which university get the prestige of granting access to the documents to scholars?

Who were the letters from that Paul carried? The high priest. Who was the high priest? Rome's right-hand man in Judaea and Galilee. What was Jesus crucified for? Political unrest. This might not have been strictly kosher, but why wouldn't the Roman leaders have supported the high priest in squashing percieved threats to their rule? Assuming, of course, that they were fully informed, rather than this being a private initiative carried out between the high priest and local Jewish communal leaders?

My point is that there has been efforts to misrepresent the value of finding such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fact that the settlement was named Damascus is only one effort to confuse history.

As to Paul - If we assume that Christians were more of a threat to Rome than the Jews at this point of history - you may have a point. I am not sure that the Roman even made the distinction at that point of history that the Christians were anything more than another sect of Jews. My question is that you are convinced that all Paul needed was a letter from the High Priest of the Jews in Jerusalem to remove Roman subjects in an entirely different Roman provenance for capital crimes? I can understand such a thing in the jurisdiction of Palestine but not outside of Palestine.

I would point out the the Jews would not even dare convict Jesus to death without Roman permission. It is hard for me to believe that Rome was willing to grant the Jews such power - Things were not improving and by 74 AD. the Romans would unleash an attack on the Jews of Palestine that some historians (including Josephus) document as one of histories most brutal and cruel moves of human history.

What is curious to me is why so many are so adamant about not even considering that Paul's conversion took place very close to Jerusalem or that the copper scroll found at Qumran was not a fraudulent document.

The Traveler

[volgadon]

What is curious to me is why so many are so adamant about not even considering that Paul's conversion took place very close to Jerusalem

Because not a shred of solid evidence has been provided.

or that the copper scroll found at Qumran was not a fraudulent document.

I was unaware that the prevailing opinion is one of fraud. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[szorgalmasan]

Did the merciless debunking of the Book of Abraham affect anyone's testimony?

It affected mine to the point where I officially resigned from the Church a few years ago (which I now regret and wish I had not done).

And, in this information age, how do you remain strong in your testimony in the face of all the negativity, particularly online?

Yes, it was part of the reason that I quit going to church, but not the only reason. I don't think that the Book of Abraham alone would have been enough for me to lose my testimony, but it was definitely another rung on the ladder.