Problems With the Book of Abraham

[Lakumi]

When I was investigating the Church my prayers started out a "God if you are really out there......" nothing wrong with that if you really want to know AND are willing to do something about it if He answers.

sometimes yes, sometimes no.

As I have said before-in another thread, I generally have no idea if I will go to church on any given Sunday, due to how my moods change, how sometimes I feel completely unwilling to see anyone and will not leave the house.

Sometimes I am fine and go as normal, sometimes I feel cold and unhappy when there (which I more think is the air conditioning as I have always had bad effects to it).

I am a loner, and feel prefectly comfortable about that. I am also very impulsive, I've done things like go to another city for the day or two on a total whim (usually on weekends since for the vast majoirty of my working life I have had a 9-5 monday to friday sort of job).

How does a loner function in such a place?

[lagarthaaz]

It's been awhile since I have been able to really study the Mormon church again in depth. While I remain very impressed, even baffled, by some of the Book of Mormon evidences, certain aspects of the Mormon faith seem suspect to me (if they didn't, I would already be a Mormon!).

One of the biggest problems I see is with the Book of Abraham. I have read the Jeff Lindsay and FAIR Mormon responses to the criticisms of the Book of Abraham, and while many of those arguments make sense, it still seems very hard to believe that Smith accurately translated the papyri (whichever ones they are) when the first picture seems to be referenced in the text and does NOT appear to be accurately translated.

What are your thoughts on the Book of Abraham? Any good evidence (that's at least somewhat easy to suggest) to support your claims?

As I have said on these forums before, I try to be as fair as I can possibly be and I truly am genuinely interested in learning more.

Thanks in advance!

Justin

Just my two cents in response to the OP...because I have read the Book of Abraham and in many ways actually have a deeper testimony of it than any other sacred text, I am not at all bothered by the 'latest' arguments about the papyrus. When I read this book I felt as if the windows of heaven were opened before me - the teachings of the pre-mortal existence, among other doctrines are simply magnificent. So bring it on world - bicker back and forth about images and experts and whatnot, it makes no difference to me. In the end I have no doubt about the truthfulness of this sacred text - that's all I can say.

Spiritually speaking, we are all traveling at different speeds, but I know if you put pray and put your faith in God, He will guide you to the truth.

Good luck with your journey :)

[HiJolly]

jinc1019

That's totally fair...but the problem with this reasoning is...How do you know when you receive a true testimony and not simply an emotion that makes you FEEL like it's a true testimony?

mnn727

I received much more than a feeling. I got a personal reply from God -- poo poo it if you want, but there is no doubt in my mind, and it was not just heartburn(ie a burning in the bosom).

church

But this much I can promise from personal experience. When you know, you KNOW! Feeling the spirit is not just emotion. It is more than that. Much more. But to explain it is practically impossible.

These three comments are very good. Emotions, feelings, claims of knowledge, spirit of God/revelation/inspiration. Our conscious minds deal in all of these and must make judgements concerning their accuracy or utility in our reasoning concerning the world around us. What we often don't realize is the impact and even involvement of our sub-conscious minds in all of this. A good book to help us understand the basics of this is Robert Burton's On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not:.

When church says "When you know, you KNOW!", that's right. But it's hard to understand, put that way. mnn727 helps by saying "there is no doubt in my mind", and that helps us gain a bit more understanding. Certainty is a very complex emotion, never produced by the conscious, thinking mind. It is generated by the sub-conscious, thinking and feeling mind. Which operation we cannot know, cannot perceive.

We have differing degrees of certainty that arise in our minds, and the strongest, most unable-to-doubt degree is that conveyed by spiritual epiphanies we call 'revelation' -- sourced not, as we think of it, in our own minds, but from the mind of God.

So to boil it all down, in Mormon-ese, when we say we KNOW a thing, it is never to be taken as a evidence-based secular or scientific knowing, but rather as a CERTAINTY that is irrefutable in our own selves. We cannot doubt it, because of the intensity of our certainty concerning it. This is what we mean when we say in testimony that we 'know' a thing.

[Lakumi]

I never liked the idea of saying something like that, because to me, you can't know anything unless proven. That, I admit is a very aspergers sort of thinking. I would never say a church is true, even if I believed in it. Because I just don't like how that sounds.

[Blackmarch]

proof is just the evidence that convinces. For many it's something that works logically, and is generally something that is either reproducible or works in a greater set or an important set.

[Lakumi]

proof is just the evidence that convinces. For many it's something that works logically, and is generally something that is either reproducible or works in a greater set or an important set.

Okay well if you can't prove something then why should I believe it?

That goes for things like Creationism, Noah's Ark, etc (things that can-and have been dis-proven, you can't really prove or dis-prove the concept of deity so I leave that one out).

But knowing how old something is, how to read Ancient Egyptian and who came to the America's and when are pretty big questions that kind of need proof if you want someone to take them as literal history.

History has to be proven, it can't exist on faith. I don't have faith that WW1 happened, we know it happened.

Much like science has to be proven, and cannot exist on faith. I don't have faith in gravity, I know its there.

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay well if you can't prove something then why should I believe it?

That goes for things like Creationism, Noah's Ark, etc (things that can-and have been dis-proven, you can't really prove or dis-prove the concept of deity so I leave that one out).

But knowing how old something is, how to read Ancient Egyptian and who came to the America's and when are pretty big questions that kind of need proof if you want someone to take them as literal history.

History has to be proven, it can't exist on faith. I don't have faith that WW1 happened, we know it happened.

Much like science has to be proven, and cannot exist on faith. I don't have faith in gravity, I know its there.

 

How is a spiritual witness less proof than seeing something with one's own eyes? You sound like a man blind since birth claiming he'd disbelieve something even if he saw it. You say yourself you have no experience with having a spiritual witness. If that's the case then your viewpoint on spiritual witnesses is not relevant, just as that blind man's viewpoint on vision is not relevant. He has no viewpoint and so anything he says about vision can't really be utilized.

 

There are those who refuse to believe so-called scientific proof. I myself disbelieve certain things they claim to have proved. I am skeptical because they fly in the face of other things I know to be true. On top of that, we know, as mortals, we can see things incorrectly, misread things, misunderstand, and generally make great mistakes. Therefore, accepting anything as absolute proof takes faith. We take it for granted that we all live on faith every day. That's because we were all born and raised to do so.

 

For all any of us know we all exist inside the Matrix and nothing we see is real. We take it on faith that that is not the case.

 

A witness from the spirit qualifies as truth every bit as much as evidence from the scientific community. And, frankly, I trust God much more than I do the left-winged, agenda driven scientist who are doing their utmost to prove that God does not exist.

[Lakumi]

As I said, trying to disprove God-one isn't going to get far. The mere idea of deity is so beyond us that science couldn't tread there. That's not what I am talking about.

I am talking about things like a society of people that have no record of ever existing. You can't use your spiritual witness to prove your point (just say since I don't have it I don't believe), where as I can use my historical one to prove my point (and the evidence of no artefacts and the like to back it up)

 

Having faith in the sun coming up or that WW1 happened is a tad different then having faith in a thing that sounds like nonsense (creationism) or a society that there is no proof of.

I don't disregard anything because "I know its true" I don't know anything is true, how can I? Only a deity would truly know, you just think, more then anything, the things you know to be true are.

[The Folk Prophet]

As I said, trying to disprove God-one isn't going to get far. The mere idea of deity is so beyond us that science couldn't tread there. That's not what I am talking about.

I am talking about things like a society of people that have no record of ever existing. You can't use your spiritual witness to prove your point (just say since I don't have it I don't believe), where as I can use my historical one to prove my point (and the evidence of no artefacts and the like to back it up)

 

Having faith in the sun coming up or that WW1 happened is a tad different then having faith in a thing that sounds like nonsense (creationism) or a society that there is no proof of.

I don't disregard anything because "I know its true" I don't know anything is true, how can I? Only a deity would truly know, you just think, more then anything, the things you know to be true are.

 

You are making the common mistake of applying sociology to personal experience. Being able to show proof of something to another, or having a broad acceptance of something in society, is entirely irrelevant to a personal experience with God.

 

I cannot prove religion to anyone. No one else can prove religion to another. In that, you are correct. But God can and does prove religion to many. And that is as valid to them as their understanding that the sun comes up every day. It does not matter that they cannot prove it to others. It matters that God proved it to them.

 

Your experience with God is yours. If you have an angel appear to you, you will know you had an angel appear to you. I may not believe you. Society may not believe you. You would have no way of proving it. But you would know it as surely as you know the sun is in the sky.

[Lakumi]

Very true, I can't make you believe my seeing of faeries (the balls of dancing light) but I don't try and make others accept my personal-spiritual experiences as fact.

I don't go around saying "I know faeries are real!"

Because I don't.

God only seems to prove religion to those who want to believe in it, but people like myself, who have many beliefs I have taken from many religions (I felt one was limiting) there's no proof of one religion to me. God didn't tell me to go after one, no more then Krishna, or Ceres or Yokoshima did...

[The Folk Prophet]

God only seems to prove religion to those who want to believe in it,

 

This is just plain and simply false.  What is true is that many, despite proof, still refuse to believe.

[Blackmarch]

grr sorry lakumi but new forums is really messing with my attempts to reply >.<


Should you believe? That's up to you, no matter how much evidence or lack thereof is. Only you decide what is enough evidence or what is not as to whether something is "proven" to you. As for WW1 or 2 you are using faith, believe it or not; you have faith that all the many sources of information that you've received (whether from peoples accounts, locations you've been to, artifacts seen, and etc..) are not hoaxed or in error.
you also have faith in certain processes and once an item can go through those processes it becomes "fact" then from there you have faith that this fact is then "correct". not only but the foundational process which items go thorugh to become fact is also open to change.
Everybody has these processes, for some it's more tightly controlled, and have different standards (IE like scientists) than others.

Suppose the Australian gov were going to remove the aborigines from their lands and someone went to warn them...
If that person who's warning them has only himself and what he's heard, should he be believed? Why or why not?



Creationism or deism have not been proven or disproven mainly due to their vagueness and considering that presented evidences are few and don't convince much one side or the other as they can be used for evidence for either argument.

As for Noah's ark it tends to be that better evidence comes that shows supporting evidence to be something else.

For Native americans- are you aware that while DNA evidence majorly supports an Asian influx and a slight middle eastern influence (found in north eastern US tribes), the technology trail actually points to east European? Or why have all the evidences from various sources (especially oral histories, artifacts found and events that occurred during early settlement times) generally discarded or forgotten? (seriously there's more evidence for a jewish influence into parts of pre Columbian native americans than there is evidence for black holes).... altho there may be more of that according to some Indians for the mere fact that people do not ask or consult with them.

For book of Abraham- book of Abraham was destroyed in the Chicago fire, the only other things that have survived were the items used for the facsimiles. Again with Egyptology its still a changing science that is no where near perfect and that as new things are found out and old "facts" end up having to be corrected... like I've said earlier JS has gone from being totally wrong about the facsimiles to mostly wrong if going by what the experts say... which may prove he's wrong in the short term but that over time he ends up being right.


Sure big claims require big proofs.. problem is, is that many evidences tend to get missed, dismissed or passed over (or in a third yet to be found). Which makes it convenient for one side or another to say "oh hey yo, you don't have proof" And what some see as big others see as small.
 

[Lakumi]

This is just plain and simply false.  What is true is that many, despite proof, still refuse to believe.

 

 

Okay, what proof? I am interested, what proof for the Book of Mormon do you have?

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, what proof? I am interested, what proof for the Book of Mormon do you have?

 

I have already told you, as have others. It is not a proof I can share with you. Nor would I if I could, for God has specified his method for proving himself and I would not go against it even if I had the power.

[Lakumi]

grr sorry lakumi but new forums is really messing with my attempts to reply >.<

Should you believe? That's up to you, no matter how much evidence or lack thereof is. Only you decide what is enough evidence or what is not as to whether something is "proven" to you. As for WW1 or 2 you are using faith, believe it or not; you have faith that all the many sources of information that you've received (whether from peoples accounts, locations you've been to, artifacts seen, and etc..) are not hoaxed or in error.

you also have faith in certain processes and once an item can go through those processes it becomes "fact" then from there you have faith that this fact is then "correct". not only but the foundational process which items go thorugh to become fact is also open to change.

Everybody has these processes, for some it's more tightly controlled, and have different standards (IE like scientists) than others.

Suppose the Australian gov were going to remove the aborigines from their lands and someone went to warn them...

If that person who's warning them has only himself and what he's heard, should he be believed? Why or why not?

Creationism or deism have not been proven or disproven mainly due to their vagueness and considering that presented evidences are few and don't convince much one side or the other as they can be used for evidence for either argument.

As for Noah's ark it tends to be that better evidence comes that shows supporting evidence to be something else.

For Native americans- are you aware that while DNA evidence majorly supports an Asian influx and a slight middle eastern influence (found in north eastern US tribes), the technology trail actually points to east European? Or why have all the evidences from various sources (especially oral histories, artifacts found and events that occurred during early settlement times) generally discarded or forgotten? (seriously there's more evidence for a jewish influence into parts of pre Columbian native americans than there is evidence for black holes).... altho there may be more of that according to some Indians for the mere fact that people do not ask or consult with them.

For book of Abraham- book of Abraham was destroyed in the Chicago fire, the only other things that have survived were the items used for the facsimiles. Again with Egyptology its still a changing science that is no where near perfect and that as new things are found out and old "facts" end up having to be corrected... like I've said earlier JS has gone from being totally wrong about the facsimiles to mostly wrong if going by what the experts say... which may prove he's wrong in the short term but that over time he ends up being right.

Sure big claims require big proofs.. problem is, is that many evidences tend to get missed, dismissed or passed over (or in a third yet to be found). Which makes it convenient for one side or another to say "oh hey yo, you don't have proof" And what some see as big others see as small.

 

I'm not asking for some giant thing, just something, some little thing! Something, Anything that can give what you're saying some proof, beyond spiritual witness or some such thing.

Some source, some evidence, you are dancing around the issue with answers I have heard time and time again which answers roughly nothing and merely says "oh its all gone so we can't prove it, but it totally happened!"

 

I do know they did find a few of the scroll pieces and the church was given them after they were translated, and they have them today.

[Lakumi]

I have already told you, as have others. It is not a proof I can share with you. Nor would I if I could, for God has specified his method for proving himself and I would not go against it even if I had the power.

Then you don't have proof, you're saying there's proof but people still choose not to believe, then you come out with this.

You understand why I don't believe you?!

[The Folk Prophet]

Then you don't have proof, you're saying there's proof but people still choose not to believe, then you come out with this.

You understand why I don't believe you?!

 

I'm not asking you to believe me. You would be stupid to believe me. I'm telling you that only God can provide proof of God. You may stubbornly press on about other humans providing proof of the divine. That's your prerogative. But it is meaningless. Only the divine can prove the divine.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not asking for some giant thing, just something, some little thing! Something, Anything that can give what you're saying some proof, beyond spiritual witness or some such thing.

 

There are plenty of "little things". You simply refuse to accept them.

[Lakumi]

There are plenty of "little things". You simply refuse to accept them.

like?

[The Folk Prophet]

like?

 

I am of no mind to debate with you further on it. You will not take anything I could offer as "proof". So why should I give them as proof. It would not be meaningful to you or to me.

[Lakumi]

I am of no mind to debate with you further on it. You will not take anything I could offer as "proof". So why should I give them as proof. It would not be meaningful to you or to me.

 

I at least want to hear you out.

[bytebear]

Here's my problem with "proof".  It's never enough.  There is plenty of evidence that the church is true, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture.  There are volumes written on it, and you can find plenty of documents and proofs.  They aren't hard to find, and you can easily look them up yourself. 

 

I am reminded of 1 Kings 19:

 

¹¹ And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

¹² And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

 

We often use the term "still small voice" to describe the promptings of the Holy Ghost.  We aren't big on flashy, showy relgious proofs.  We don't handle snakes, or convulse on the ground speaking tongues.  We don't protest opponents or boycott events to prove our piety.  We simply rely on the Holy Ghost to convince people that the gospel is true.

 

The convert who relies on the strong wind, the earthquake and the fire will fall away, because sometimes they don't come, or another faith has an even bigger fire or earthquake.  No, it's the still small voice that confirms truth, and it's the only true way to know God (and his church).  All "evidence" is a by product of truth.  Why are Mormons known for being happy?  Byproduct of truth.  Why do the concepts of Joseph Smith fit so well with the Bible?  Byproduct of truth.  Why are other faiths also producing good, humble people?  Byproduct of truth.   But don't mistake the byproduct for the whole truth.  This life is a journey.  The church is just a path to the truth.  It's the most direct path we have now and will always point to salvation and the greatest rewards in the afterlife (the reward being happiness).  So, if you need proof, live the gospel and find the Lord through that Still Small Voice.  Then you will have your proof.

[Lakumi]

Do you have names of books I can read or websites, I would most certainly wish to read these.

I wish to see this proof myself.

[bytebear]

fairlds has some good stuff, but also Kerry Sheets (I think that's his name) has a ton of research.  Hugh Nibley is very insightful, but he can sometimes feel a bit out there.

[Blackmarch]

I'm not asking for some giant thing, just something, some little thing! Something, Anything that can give what you're saying some proof, beyond spiritual witness or some such thing.

Some source, some evidence, you are dancing around the issue with answers I have heard time and time again which answers roughly nothing and merely says "oh its all gone so we can't prove it, but it totally happened!"

 

I do know they did find a few of the scroll pieces and the church was given them after they were translated, and they have them today.

OK if youre wanting specific evidences did you go over the links provided in the first couple of posts? There are quite a few evidences presented among them. IN which case these evidences need to be shown how they are being used incorrectly if they are being misused.

one of the critiques I've seen/heard a few times of the lion-couch facsimile is that Joseph incorrectly names the 4 sons of horus as the 4 directions or 4 corners of the earth.

about the 4th paragraph is what is of interest

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/religion/sons_of_horus.htm'>http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/religion/sons_of_horus.htm

Was joseph lucky?

how the crap did JS also nail the prayer position of the person on the couch?

He also nailed that Anubis character would be a priest

He also as well correctly identified the pharaoh association with the alligator underneath it.