On Tuesday, August 11th (2009) the “Authorized news web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Church News) showcased a lecture given by John Gee, “an associate research professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU” (the organization formerly known as FARMS).
“While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves, a Latter-day Saint Egyptologist said Aug. 6 at the annual conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR).” (“The Book of Abraham: The larger issue”)
Dr. Gee’s bedrock argument is that the Book of Abraham is “not central” and that its validity is not crucial:
“‘The Book of Abraham is true,’ said Brother Gee,…’I think it can be defended. I think it should be defended. But it’s not the be-all-and-end-all of either apologetics or research or the scriptures…’
“‘…if what is most important needs to be defended, what are some of the things that need to be defended?’ he asked.
“He suggested six: God exists; Jesus Christ is His Son; God talked and still talks with men through the power of the Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world; the Atonement is available to those who trust Jesus, turn from sin, make and keep sacred covenants, and follow the course throughout their lives; and the Book of Mormon is true, an authentic record of God’s interactions with actual ancient people…
“‘Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?’ he asked. ‘It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ…
“…how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.‘”
Joseph Smith began the “translation” of the text of the Book of Abraham in 1835. The translation was printed in LDS publications in 1842, 1851 and 1878. It was officially canonized as LDS scripture in 1880.
While giving lip-service to the claim that the Book of Abraham is true, Dr. Gee’s comments actually serve to place something Mormons recognize as sacred scripture on the ‘irrelevant shelf’ to gather the dust of neglect.
If Mormons believe the Book of Abraham is true, if they believe it is “the word of God as revealed to His inspired prophets,” and if continuing revelation is central to the restored gospel, how does Dr. Gee, and by extension the LDS Church, come to say it’s not all that important?
The implication here is that LDS leaders recognize that if the Book of Abraham really isn’t true—if Joseph Smith’s prophetic work known as the Book of Abraham is fraudulent—they will still encourage Mormons to sustain Joseph Smith as a true prophet.
Nevermind that Joseph Smith was acting as a charlatan, claiming to translate by the gift and power of God.
Nevermind that church membership, by “common consent,” was in error when it sustained the canonization of the Book of Abraham in 1880.
Nevermind that the LDS Church has been wrong to include it in the LDS canon of scripture for the last 129 years (What other things might be erroneously included in the LDS canon?).
Nevermind that doctrines that have arisen historically or have been solidified by the Book of Abraham are called into question, such as pre-mortal existence, the multiplicity of gods, and the co-participation in the work of “creation” between God the Father and “the gods” (including Adam).
Nevermind that Joseph Smith unnecessarily required great sacrifice on the part of the Latter-day Saints in 1835 when he solicited $2400 to purchase the Egyptian papyri.
Nevermind that prophets are supposed to represent God Almighty and that they should be held to higher standards than mere teachers or politicians or world leaders, particularly when doing something in the name of God.
Nevermind that people have left the “one true Church” over their loss of faith in the Book of Abraham. Nevermind that no one told them this LDS scripture was unimportant. The Church bid them fond farewell and as a result families have been split. Lives have been rocked. Tears shed. Hard words exchanged. Marriages broken. For what? For something that now, in 2009, doesn’t really matter anymore.
No apologies, no repentance, no major doctrinal reversals.
Gordon B. Hinckley once said, “Don’t worry about those little flicks of history.”
But how can we not be concerned? Jesus said, “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
Maybe it is just me, but this dismissal of the BOA seems kind of big. I mean, it is part of the “Quad” and such. But what troubles me more, is the silence of the big guys. Where is the word of the Prophet, Revelator, Prophet? Perhaps this sort of “doctrinal drift” is good news in the eyes of some Evs who see the Mormon church as moving towards traditional Christendom, but it would seem that this is just another quagmire that will continue to cause confusion and dissension. So, one is left, in what seems like a “yet again,” in terms of faith building. One more story, prophecy, revelation, practice, belief becomes either important, interesting, historical, but not essential. It makes you think…
I think this is Brother Gee’s reaction to the failure of Mormon apologists to develop any reasonable apologetic for the “translation” of the Book of Abraham. Nothing more. Basically he is saying, “we cannot mount a reasonable defense of the Book of Abraham so we will focus our, and hopefully Mormon critics, attention elsewhere and hope you don’t notice that we can’t provide any viable answers for the arguments against the Book of Abraham. Then of course in a few years we (LDS apologists) will claim that all of the Book of Abraham issues have been taken care of, so we should not worry about them. And then we will produce a huge document siting hundreds of irrelevant, impossible to find, and mostly friendly sources pointing to some perifial issue, such as there was papyrus in Egypt, that was never in doubt and claim everything about the Book of Abraham is solved.”
Its good work if you can get it.
LOL! Exactly!
Dr. Gee, states, “Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.
“This is what we as Latter-day Saints care about,” he said. “It is what is important.”
The critics may regard that as vain superstition, he said, “but they seem to deem it not even worthy of attack. What they attack is simply not important to the Latter-day Saints.”
Wow, nicely edited Sharon and Aaron. Problematic is the manipulation and slant you seem to
want to achieve for of course you ongoing agenda to discredit our Church. Good job.
So instead of attacking the what of the pre-mortal existence, you guys marginalize this very well by distracting what Dr. Gee correctly points out, ” While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, they attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves,”
So Aaron and Sharon, you give the false accusation, and I quote, “While giving lip-service to the claim that the Book of Abraham is true, Dr. Gee’s comments actually serve to place something Mormons recognize as sacred scripture on the ‘irrelevant shelf’ to gather the dust of neglect.”
Most interesting how you manipulated what his remarks very well described, ” While critics of the Church often challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price”.
He is talking about the on going debate by critics of it’s authenticity, He replies quiet nicely by stating, “He said that is not to say Church members can or should forego the Book of Abraham, “but simply to give an idea of its relative importance. It is more important than some things and much less important than others.”
I quote Sharon and Aaron, “Dr. Gee’s bedrock argument is that the Book of Abraham is “not central” and that its validity is not crucial:”
Can anyone point me to something that says that the LDS church stands or falls on the BoA? I know of quotes that say the church stands or falls on JS being a prophet, or the BoM being true, but I have not heard of any about the BoA. This does not make it unimportant or not scripture, just not as important to maintaining the truthfullness of the LDS church as many non-LDS want to make out.
The BoM is the most important scripture for the LDS church, as it was the first true scripture given to man from God since the end of the Biblical apostle era almost 2000 years ago. It is what made this church distinct from all other Christian churches, and it is the most correct (NOT perfect but correct – get the quotes right when you make them) book on this earth.
As far as the comment “…as a result families have been split. Lives have been rocked. Tears shed. Hard words exchanged. Marriages broken.”, what did Jesus teach about this (Matt 10:34-37)? It’s an inevitability if Jesus taught that He was going to do it (v 35). And going on one of the last topics about idols – the family can also be an idol as Jesus taught here (Matt 10:37). So you cannot blame the LDS church for dividing families, it is the individuals themselves that are doing it because one wants to follow God and Jesus, the other does not.
Quote Sharon and Aaron, “not central, and its validity is not crucial —- lets see what Dr. Gee states in full context:
“So if what is most important needs to be defended, what are some of the things that need to be defended?” he asked.
He suggested six: God exists; Jesus Christ is His Son; God talked and still talks with men through the power of the Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world; the Atonement is available to those who trust Jesus, turn from sin, make and keep sacred covenants, and follow the course throughout their lives; and the Book of Mormon is true, an authentic record of God’s interactions with actual ancient people.
“Now, we may be called upon to defend smaller points than these, but if these six things are not true, there is no point in the rest,” Brother Gee said.
“Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?” he asked. “It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”
To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.
“This is what we as Latter-day Saints care about,” he said. “It is what is important.”
Nice hit piece, but it will never fly in Peoria!
This statement by John Gee is big. I wonder how much authority or approval he has to make it; I could see many a Mormon dismissing his comments outright.
John Gee has dealt with the BoA from every angle and he knows that it is apologetic baggage. That is why he gave the statement. The BoA is the best evidence, the smoking gun if you will, that Joseph Smith was making the whole thing up. Honestly, this statement is just sad coming from an apologist. It seems like an admission that the critics were right all along. What is irritating is the notion that the BoA, and the issues surrounding it, are ancillary in nature; to the contrary, they go right to the authenticity of J. Smith’s prophetic claim. It is not a big leap to go from a fictional BoA to a fictional BoM.
The sad thing is – in a hundred years or so, I could see the LDS church going the way of Dorothy and company. In the Wizard of Oz, the four characters go on an existential journey that leads to self-realization, and in a way – deification. The troop of four (five if you count Toto) realize that they do not need the wizard, other than to realize their own potential, and are in a way they themselves are the wizard(s). The Lion is already brave, the Tin Man already has a heart, the scare crow has always been smart, and Dorothy has been in her bed the entire time. She is the one who killed the witches of the east and west. She could go home all along. In the same way, (to some) it would not matter if the stories in the BoM, the BoA, or the Bible are true or not; they are there for one to merely realize his/her potential. Joseph was wrong about the details, but right about the end goal. What star are you from?
In any religion, is not the canonized works considered to be held in the highest regard? So why do non-members “attach more importance to it than Church members do themselves”? Why does the lds org. not hold their own scriptures in higher regard?
The LDS org. publishes their canon, and we look at the holes (we don’t need to poke holes, we examine the holes that are already in place)
Seems to be the way to go, the change in focus in the Gospel Principles, now this
I would like to recant a story I posted a while back. When you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly increase the heat, the frog cannot notice the difference and eventually dies.
People in the lds org, often cannot notice the significance of the change, or they chose to go into denial and defend it to the death.
I think the greatest service we can do for those in the lds org is never ever let them forget their past, teach the new converts about the history, the history the lds org is embarrassed about.
Kevin,
The frog analogy is an urban legend as frogs will jump out of a heated pot. It has been tested many times over. So frogs instinctively no more than some humans. Where you recanting the analogy?
Ralph,
Would it not be fair to state that Mormonism stands or falls on the phrophetic claim of Jospeh Smith? If the BoM is not what it and Joseph make it out to be then J. Smith is a false prophet.
Remember I had the article about “What would be a problem”? If this is not a problem then nothing is. Tell me how this is not just an attempt of one Mormon to dodge the obvious.
I see no problem other then critics going after the means of translation but deflect from what the Book of Abraham states and gives as doctrine, interesting and problematic for the uninitiated.
r. 🙂
So the fact that Book of Abraham was never a book by Abraham, even though it and Joseph (and your church) claimed it was has no baearing on J. Smith’s status as a prophet? Is that what you are saying? How could any book be a “fake” if that is the case? If this is what you are stating I do not see how you can be reasoned with.
We all know that the facts of the case would matter if they appeared to vindicate J. Smith. If ancient commentaries to the BoM were found in a tomb in Egypt, you know full well Mormons would be saying, “I told you so”. Well before the papyrus was found we were saying the thing was a fake based off the facsimile. Then the orignal was rediscovered. And now I am saying, “I told you so”.
David, you didn’t get the joke, The frog anaolgy is a deep rooted story among LDS sunday school, elders quorum, and relief society lessons.
Unless I’m wrong, Dr. Gee is the foremost LDS expert on the subject of the Book of Abraham.
For him to say, in essence, “hey, it’s not THAT important to our church, anyway” speaks volumes.
The horrible thing is that JUST BECAUSE HE SAID THAT, the LDS will say “Ok” and move on.
For ex-LDS and anyone else, the issue is huge.
Your FOUNDING PROPHET who claimed to TRANSLATE IT and made up a STORY ABOUT IT has been proved to have lied about it.
The idea that man can become god comes from that book. The BOOK OF MORMON presented only ONE GOD. It was the Book of Abraham where the MULTI-GODS idea came from.
So then, if Joseph Smith LIED, and got this information from NOWHERE….
Good grief! I cannot believe that the LDS cannot see through this. It just blows my mind that your founder prophet lied, made up a story that you base SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINE THAT MAKES YOU NON-CHRISTIAN on, and you’re all just going to say… well, we only QUOTE IT 1% of the time.
Almost unbelievable.
Setfree, it’s called institutionalized aww. Take notice, when was the last time a LDS leader said, “God told me this…, God Said that… It don’t happen.
First there is a policy against do this so that you don’t get rouges spouting prophecy all over the place.
Second, do omission of such claims allows the members to come up with their own conclusions, and most would say that what is said, as specific points (I.e. General Conference), is revelation from God.
The General Authorities don’t talk to God, the President doesn’t hear Gods voice, if he did, don’t you think God would want the credit for what he told a Prophet? Or did God Change, does he now want the credit to go to a man.
Hang on, I need to go answer the door, the 3 Nephits are knocking, they are looking for the real truth…
Setfree said: “Your FOUNDING PROPHET who claimed to TRANSLATE IT and made up a STORY ABOUT IT has been proved to have lied about it.”
As always, much ado about nothing.
Anyone that’s done even basic research on the BoA knows that the text, in terms of translation, is not related to the eleven fragments that we now have. Not even close.
The original BoA scrolls were described as long enough that when “unrolled on the floor, it extended through two rooms of the Mansion House”
And also:
“The Record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation” (History of the Church, 2:348)
We simply do not have the original manuscripts. So tell me setfree how exactly do you know Joseph Smith “made up a story”?
May I jump in here, JR said, “We simply do not have the original manuscripts. So tell me setfree how exactly do you know Joseph Smith “made up a story”?”
Larry D. Bell, Ph.D. Professor of Egyptology at Brown university has gone on record to say, that the paypara us a very common funeral ritual text, The four pieces we have today encompass the entire scroll. Emma Smith certified and verified the four pieces. there was no other scrolls.
The idea of being as large as you claim is a lie perpetuated by LDSers. Show me evidence that there was more to the scroll.
What about Joe’s personal diary that matches the text on the scroll with his outlandish translation?
And, as God reveals the truth about JS, and as the red flags and whistles flutter furiously and shriek piercingly, the faithful LDS close their eyes and cover their ears to the truth. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! God is calling you to the TRUTH!!
Peace and Blessings…
The statement by David Whitsell that:
“This statement by John Gee is big. I wonder how much authority or approval he has to make it”
combined with Kevin mentioning that:
“The General Authorities don’t talk to God, the President doesn’t hear Gods voice”
pretty much sums up the modus operadi of the LDS. The ‘prophet’ stands up and spouts general platitudes about being nice to each other, or the importance of giving the church money. He, along with the rest of the leadership, seems to leave the actual work of debating and defining doctrine to members with no real ‘authority’. After all, as this great, spirtual leader said on Larry King:
“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.”
Can’t have the prophet actual take a stand and actual clarify or defend LDS doctrine can we?
Members can now point to people like John Gee to bolster their faith when it suits them, and turn their back on them as one not having the proper ‘keys’ when their defenses come up short.
If Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then the Book of Abraham must be true. After all, didn’t he write it while he was the prophet? Didn’t he use church funds to do it? Didn’t he claim it was scripture and the church leadership (also supposedly lead by God) affirm this?
I agree that critics place more importance on the BoA then probably most members do themselves, but that is because it’s also the easiest book of ‘scripture’ to prove false. Until the ‘prophet’ mans up and actual speaks on behalf of God on this issue, I don’t imagine the debate will go away on either side.
Neil
P.S. Can someone share with me how to include links in these posts? I’ve tried using html code but it didn’t seem to work:(
I knew it was a matter of time before someone took up the burden of defending the BoA. First, it is agreed by all that what we have now constitutes approximately 80% of the original scroll. Nobody I know of, Mormon or non challenges this. The 80% we do have, the same part that relates to the hypothalamus (the image/seal in the Pearl of Great Price), the facsimile, and the supposed Egyptian grammar that J. Smith concocted, as well as the Book of Joseph and the rest of the funerary cache tells us that what we have is what was used to translate the BoA. Bare in mind none of the cache comes anywhere near the timeframe of the patriarch Abraham. Furthermore, we do have the entire “Book of Joseph” (nobody debates this part) and the papyrus for that has nothing to do with Joseph. Also, the hypothalamus corresponds to the original papyrus that we do have. It contradicts the facsimile and corresponds to other funerary documents from the Book of Breathings. It identifies the “jackal headed god Anubis” – it actually says this in Egyptian on the hypothalamus that is in the Pearl of Great Price. The creative facsimile got it wrong (white head on a black body) as well J. Smith’s Egyptian grammar. The BoA “translation” corresponds to the grammar or rather the grammar corresponds to it so we know what characters he took his translation from.
What the Mormon church purchased was a common funerary cache from about the first century either B.C. or A.D. J. Smith put Judeo religious concepts onto pagan Egyptian characters despite what the Egyptian actually stated. The Egyptian god Min is not Jehovah or Elohim or any other name that the Hebrews gave to the one true God. The BoA does fit in with the tall-tales Joseph was used to spinning in the American frontier. Almost everything he found seemed to have some type of historical/religious significance (like “Zelph” the white Lamanite).
continued
I have also included a picture of the papyrus from whence the facsimile came. If the evidence for the BoA was so compelling, John Gee would not have made the statement that he made.
http://vintage.aomin.org/Mintract.html
http://www.nowscape.com/mormon/abraham/abraham1.jpg
There are many evidences that point to the fact that the fragments the LDS Church now possesses are indeed the ones Joseph Smith “translated.” There is the Egyptian grammar that JS created that correlates with symbols from the papyrus and were written in the margins of the JS “translation.” In addition there is the image that JS copied into the BoA, that has been shown to be incorrectly interpreted and incorrectly added to. Any bold assertion that we don’t have the documents that JS used is flat out wishful thinking. Several members of the LDS Church walked out of the Church upon receipt of the papyrus and subsequent REAL translation. There is a problem with the BoA and the LDS Church knows it.
HankSaint, I’m having a hard time following you. Are you implying that even if the BoA is fraudulent, that critics should focus on evaluating the merits of the doctrine of the fraudulent work, and not the fact that the work is fradulent? If the BoA is fraudulent, what are the implications for you? Gee says that the BoA is of “relative importance”, yet also says, “The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham”. If that’s true, doesn’t that in principle mean that the LDS Church and its founding prophet should still be affirmed as “true” even if Smith is found to have acted as a charlatan with respect to the BoA? That is the heart of what our original post is meant to hit on. Not that Gee is affirming the BoA to be fraudulent, but rather that Gee is affirming that the BoA could be exposed as a fraud and yet the Church and its founding prophet should be continued to be affirmed as true.
Yeah, I think this is bigger than LDS let on, though I am not surprised they try to limit it. BoA, if canon, should be held to a very high standard, and that we have an admission that its not really all that important (even if more important than other things) should at least raise a red flag. This is especially true when the one who translated the big book, the BoM, translated this as well.
Why the red flag? Because if the BoA was fraudulent, then why should we trust his other work? I can see someone making something great first time around and failing next time, kind of like a one-hit-wonder, but this is something entitely different. This is sacred religious text. This is something that was warned about in the Bible, which is a book no one here questions its place as scripture.
However, the LDS do question its authenticity in that it has people’s opinions in it and can’t always be trusted because of faulty translating.
Which is interesting because these problems they see in the Bible is proof of an apostasy. But if this piece of scripture is problematic, they just dismiss it as unimportant and move on.
Is a problematic BoA indicate other problems within LDS? If you use the standard they do to show an apostacy, then you have to say yes!
I think I must remind or educate some folks here that the Book of Abraham came about largely through the continued requests of curious church members wanting a translation of those Egyptian “hieroglyphs” possessed by JSmith. It first appeared in print in the rather provicial manner of an installment series in Nauvoo’s Times and Seasons newspaper. And it wasn’t ratified as official “scripture” till many years later, in Utah.
Though the Bk of Abraham narrative contains some interesting aspects relating to known non-biblical Abraham myths, it has little in common with the Egyptian Book of Horus/Breathings (Bk of the Dead) that account for two of the three fascimiles appearing in print with the Bk of Abraham. For Gee, the explanation is that another scroll besides the Bk of Breathings was in JSmith’s possession. While there’s fair evidence for this possibility from the 19th century descriptions given of the scrolls (a point that occupied quite a bit of Gee’s talk–which I, by the way attended), Gee is very open to the fact that other fair apologetic explanations exist, some of which challenge some of the traditional statements and explanations for this text (& I subscribe to one, by the way).
But the main point of Gee’s devastating quotation — which your hack-job quote entirely misses (incidentally, I’m sure :)) — isn’t to emphasize the Bk of Abraham’s non-essential status to the Mormon faith. Rather, it’s to emphasize its secondary status to the Book of Mormon — the text upon which the faith does indeed “stand or fall.”
Unlike the Bk of Abraham, the Bk of Mormon came about as a revelation and command by God to Joseph Smith. And rather than appearing as installments in a newspaper, it first appeared as 3000 leather-bound books that were covered by the cost of a farmer’s main property. From day one it is what the Mormon church still holds it to be — the 2nd witness of Jesus Christ, equal in authority to the 1st witness, the Bible.
Sincerely, mutu.
mutu said,
How is this not spin? What’s at stake here isn’t merely what is emphasized by Gee (and the Church that published his statements), but what propositions are affirmed as true or false. Gee clearly says that, “The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham”, and before we argue over whether that is a point of more or less “emphasis”, it needs to be established as being affirmed as true or false. Let your “yes” be “yes”, and your “no” be “no” on this: Did or did not Gee affirm that the BoA is not essential to Mormonism? Is or is not an implication of this that, if the BoA be recognized as fraudulent, leadership would, in principle, still affirm the validity of the Church and its founding prophet?
The “emphasis” card is used in other topics as well by Mormons (not to mention liberal theologians in Protestantism) to hedge important issues. In the topic of grace, faith, and merit, Mormons often talk about an “emphasis” on grace to avoid talking about the problem of Mormon institutional affirmations of the crucial role of personal merit in earning eternal life and forgiveness. But this avoids making public commitments on true/false propositions that deeply matter. Contrasting degrees of emphasis should come far after contrasting affirmations and denials.
Talk about jumping before the gun was even assembled. Do you critics know anything about John Gee? I suggest you do a little research before cheering that he is abandoning the BOA. What a joke. John Gee has written some great material on the BOA, and is one of its most articulate and committed defenders. But the response here is so predictable and misdirected.
The gist of the talk by Gee is very much in support of the BOA. The quotation included in Sharon’s hit job is being very much misunderstood here. In fact, when I read this talk some time ago, I thought is was worth sending it along to a few critics I know for their consideration.
I laugh when people claim, like David Whitsell, that the BOA is known to be a fraud. The critics are very much behind on the research on this topic. The fragments possessed by the church are clearly not the 9 foot scroll described by every witness of the scrolls from which the BOA was translated. The BOA scroll was very likely burned in the fire that took down the museum in Chicago.
And the BOA text has been shown to correlate very nicely with extra-biblical traditions and writings regarding Abraham and his life- things that would be impossible to know in 1832.
In all sincerity, I encourage critics to read something in addition to the typical anti-BOA literature. If you really want to understand the evidences and arguments, this is the only way to be informed. Otherwise, you really do look silly- the narrowness of your knowledge is obvious. But in my experience, understanding and knowledge of all sides of the core issues are not of primary concern for most critics.
As Nibley used to say- any substantive, real look at the actual text of the BOA shows it to be clearly of ancient origin. This is what critics essentially never attempt. They are caught up focusing on small fragments of papyrus in SLC and in doing so are losing the argument.
I have to wonder…
do any of the LDS here arguing FOR the Book of Abraham ever study it? compare it to the Book of Moses? wonder why there are two contradictory, opposing views of Genesis in the Pearl of Great Price?
And before you say they’re not contradictory… please, read them. And not just the chapter headings…
Olsen,
Your statements are only accepted in the most die-hard TBM circles. This –
“The fragments possessed by the church are clearly not the 9 foot scroll described by every witness of the scrolls from which the BOA was translated. The BOA scroll was very likely burned in the fire that took down the museum in Chicago.”
– is bogus. The cache we have is indeed the one purchased by your church in the 1830’s; it even was accompanied by an affidavit by Emma. Plus, the “grammar” has been in SLC Mormon’s possession since its been in existence (and the facsimile). Olsen you cannot get around that the seal in the PoG says something completely different from the text of the PoG. The facsimile is clearly the creation of an active imagination and it goes against the the Egyptian in the hypothalamus. Its a funerary cache plain and simple.
Before you point your finger at critics, you need to handle business in your own camp. At least we are dealing with a quotation by a Mormon apologist that was given in the last month. Mormons here pull out a quote from two Protestants (I would not call one Evangelical) from eleven to twelve years ago.
Aaron asks:
Did or did not Gee affirm that the BoA is not essential to Mormonism?
YES, and I agree with him. The BoA most certainly is not essential to the Mormon faith. But that WAS NOT Gee’s main point. The real point of his statement–and the whole point for his “stand or fall” wording–was to affirm the essentialness of the Book of Mormon to the Mormon church and faith.
Aaron goes on:
Is or is not an implication of this that, if the BoA be recognized as fraudulent, leadership would, in principle, still affirm the validity of the Church and its founding prophet?
No, I don’t think this is at all Gee’s meaning. First of all, Gee very strongly believes that the BoA is not fraudulent, and there are few or no men w/in the Mormon faith who are better qualified to hold that opinion, at least by scientific/academic standards. Secondly, this insinuation is exactly what a polemists wants to make of Gee’s statement. In your ears and mind, Aaron, you must resort to a hack-job quote, not because you aren’t capable of better, but because that is exactly what you choose to see and read.
The vast amount of revelatory effort that came during JSmith’s 7-year study of the Egyptian scrolls had little to do with writing the Bk of Abraham. When you, Aaron, can explain how the systematic bodily consecrations followed by the journey and exaltation rites — which do form the gist of the Bk of Horus — somehow also form the gist of the sacred liturgy that JSmith does spend the bulk of his revelatory time with, then, Aaron — you, I, and John Gee (who is also well aware of this fact) can sit down and discuss the plainly fraudulent excesses of the Mormon Prophet and Seer.
Sincerely, mutu.
If you were president and wrote an essay on health care, mutu, chiefly emphasizing the importance of everyone in the country being covered, and in a footnote mentioned that this would cost every American at least $30,000 a year, their unborn child, and their left kidney, I can assure you that I wouldn’t care one bit whether that footnote was meant as a point of “emphasis”.
I didn’t ask you if Gee believed the BoA was fradulent (the answer to that is obvious), I asked about Gee’s principled implications (not mere specific explications) of the hypothetical of the BoA being fraudulent, namely that the LDS Church and its founding prophet are still worth affirming as true. You failed to answer this, so much of your response has only functioned as more hedging.
The Mormon theme here of looking the other way is all too telling.
We are basically being told that Mormonism is still true even if the BoA is a fraud, and that if we don’t like that we should focus on what Gee more so “emphasized”.
“PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. Even if our prophet was fraudulent with the BoA he has a free pass.”
Aaron, here goes my daily limit.
Aaron: Did or did not Gee affirm that the BoA is not essential to Mormonism?
mutu: YES, and I agree with him. The BoA most certainly is not essential to the Mormon faith. But that WAS NOT Gee’s main point. The real point of his statement–and the whole point for his “stand or fall” wording–was to affirm the essentialness of the Book of Mormon to the Mormon church and faith.
Aaron: If you were president and wrote an essay on health care, mutu, chiefly emphasizing the importance of everyone in the country being covered, and in a footnote mentioned that this would cost every American at least $30,000 a year, their unborn child, and their left kidney, I can assure you that I wouldn’t care one bit whether that footnote was meant as a point of “emphasis”.
mutu: I’m sorry, but if I indeed qualify as the President in this conversation, Aaron, then I think I just unequivocally said that the Bk. of Abraham costs the Mormon faith nothing. And as I clearly explained in my previous posts, the book’s hypothetical fraudulence has nothing to do with it. Rather, the price of the pudding is found in its packaging. Sorry, but the “word of God” in the Mormon faith is not simply “all that stuff” between the leather bindings. Nothing involving the modern coming forth of the Bk of Abraham would suggest it to hold a central place in the Mormon faith. Systematically inclined Mormons might gasp at the thought, but that’s just the way it is.
No hedging was ever involved in my explanations. Only in your mind, as in your article’s use of quotation.
BTW, your article’s ellipses were much more “suggestive” or “emphatic” than any footnote could hope to be. But keep up the good analogies; they’re very creative!
Sincerely, mutu.
The fundamental disagreement here is over whether a true prophet can hypothetically give fraudulent scripture that is later discarded, having no necessary principled bearing on whether adherents of this prophet keep their allegiance to him.
Christianity says no.
Mormonism say yes.
“mutu: YES, and I agree with him. The BoA most certainly is not essential to the Mormon faith.”
This Book of Abraham is the one book of ‘ancient scripture’ that gives heed to you guys’ restoration of the Melchezidek Priesthood.
I can hardly believe what is being said here.
I’ll ask it again.
DO YOU GUYS READ YOUR OWN SCRIPTURES?????
WHAT IS IT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS????
Your plural gods,
Melchezidek Priesthood being from Adam on down and then getting lost and needing to be restored,
ability to become gods…
and therefore your
all important AUTHORITY AND TEMPLE ORDINANCES
COME FROM THIS BOOK!!
NOT IMPORTANT?????????
Wow, this is too amazing.
Guys, read the Book of Abraham. Other than being some more Joseph Smith rewrite of Genesis, it most definitely is from the parchment in question.
Abr 1:12 “12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me… that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.
and
Abr 1:14 “14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning…”
A burnt scroll and a angel-whisked-away set of golden plates. sooooooooooo convenient.
Over at the atheistic RFM Craig Paxton quotes John Gee and responds with the following:
I think the problem is that Joseph Smith didn’t use his magic rock when he was doing the translating for the BoA. I have a suggestion. I know that the SLC branch of Mormonism has the magic rock. They’ve got the scrolls. They’ve got a living prophet. Are you following me here?
On an exMormon cite, one writer said, “I feel bad for FAIR, having to defend an institution that hobbles its defenders with one uncompromisable premise. That no matter what the facts, no matter what the reality, no matter what the circumstances,there can be only one answer to all difficult questions; the Mormon Church is true. In other words, Mormon apologists must start with the answer fixed and immovable and work backwards from that premise before the question is even asked…..they must begin all arguments with their conclusion first, no matter the argument, no matter how absurd the logic used, no matter how painful the mental gymnastics applied….The Church requires one uncompromisable rule, start with the desired conclusion, the Church is true, and work backwards.
Shall we make a list of all the changes that the LDS have had to accept either because science has proven Mormonism a fairytale or because polite society has pressured them to change all their sacred, secret, super duper stuff. Ahhh the magic of believing.
Setfree,
The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored and the ‘doctrine’ about it being given to Adam came way before the translation/publication of the BoA. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored in 1829, the revelation about Adam having it was given in 1832 (D&C 84:6-17). The BoA was finished and printed in 1842. So none of the things you said about Adam having the Mechizedek Priesthood, the restoration of the Priesthood, temple work, etc coming from this book is true. all these things came from revelation to JS, not from the BoA.
I ran across a short article relative to our topic where the writer editorializes that “perhaps this is where FAIR is coming from”. He says that following the discovery of the Egyptian Papyri Ferguson concluded that the church was false. He didn’t share this information with his family, seeing the church as having social utility. In a letter written Feb. 9, 1976, he gave this advice:
“….Mormonism is probably the best conceived myth-fraternity to which one can belong….Joseph Smith tried so hard he put himself out on a limb with the Book of Abraham, and also with the Book of Mormon. He can be refuted-but why bother….It would be like wiping out placebos in medicine, and that would make no sense when they do lots of good…..”
“Why not say the right things and keep your membership in the great fraternity, enjoying the good things you like and discarding the ones you can’t swallow (and keeping your mouth shut?) Hypocritical? Maybe…thousands of members have done, and are doing, what I suggest you consider doing. Silence is golden….So why try to be heroic and fight the myths-the Mormon one or any other that does more good than ill?”
“Perhaps you and I have been spoofed by Joseph Smith. Now that we have the inside dope-why not spoof a little back and stay aboard?”
I love the logic here but at least the guy gets it. I feel sorry for the folks who just grit their teeth and are going to believe no matter what. It does matter however.
A person’s eternal destiny depends on getting it right regarding who God is? That’s the tragedy of Mormonism despite whatever religious placebo it provides.
Ralph,
I appreciate that, but since Joseph Smith produced the “revelations”, the D&C, and the BoA, this is one and the same thing.
Let me put it another way. I’ve started a new religion. I’ve brought forth some new doctrine that people aren’t really rejoicing over. How do I prove that I’m right? Discover an ancient manuscript which verifies my “revelations”.
It’s an easy, logical sequence for anyone who does not need to believe Joseph(s) Myth.
That the BoA came later than Joseph’s idea for it, combined with Joseph’s lie about the papyri… see what I’m getting at? It was his idea, his “revelations”, but the ancient text he brought forth to prove himself is just a lie.
By the way… is there any other place, other than Joseph Smith, where one can find evidence of the M Priesthood being held or used by Adam and on down?
Anyone, anyone???
Falcon, I complement you again on your recent (mellow) comments. Really enjoying them! 🙂
I need to ask everyone to pray for me and my wife. Tomorrow we leave for Wyoming, to a little town called Emblem, AKA Mormon central, 75% LDS. This will be the first time we will see my wife’s side of the family since our liberation. Luckily most of her family is non-confentational, although they do not like her decision to Jump away from the Morg.
If I was LDS, I would be testing all of this against a chair with 4 legs in my kitchen.
Our LDS scholar has informed me that one of the four legs is no longer relevant for the chair to remain balanced…so I remove it. Darn it, the chair fell over.
No worries, I will just relocate the legs and putty up a few holes and presto! I have a chair with 3 legs that balances ..er pretty well.
Who said it was a chair with 4 legs anyway? It’s a chair with legs…and it is not important or I can’t remember if it had 4 legs at some point.
(Note: ease into the sitting position when using that chair in future)…..LOL!!!
Kevin,
I’m more than a little jealous about you heading out to the Big Horns. One of my all time favorite places to hike. I hope you make it up to Bucking Mule Falls. It’s worth the hike. I remember piggy-backing my daughter up there when she was just a puppy. Just remember, God will lead you and protect you as you interact with your wife’s Mormon relatives. Stop in Buffalo and look at the museum. You’d get a kick out of the sheep herders wagon on display there.
Check in if you get the chance.
let’s save the proverbial rhetoric here. how can any LDS member on this site defend such blasphemy. all arguments aside, what the LDS claim (as J. Smith did) is that they are informed and educated on matters way beyond there rationality. that being, of course, Egyptology and linguistics. i’m so happy to have left the church less than a year ago.
my challenge, name 1 PROFESSIONAL or SCHOLAR that validates the BofA as correct, or ancient text! won’t happen, will never happen. it is fraudulent and fake. period. if you can’t see it, then fine. but don’t defend something that doesn’t exist. “reformed eyptian” … c’mon. you might as well jump on the scientology band wagon. this is getting downright crazy.
it is like having a conversation with someone who believes that muppets are “real” creatures because they teach kids moral lessons.
LDS member … tell me how to get, how to get to sesame street … how to get to the J. Smith boulevard.
the lies are being uncovered in these “latter” days and it won’t be long until the majority knows of your wicked ways. just because you perform good works doesn’t make you christian or affirm your false doctrine and convoluted doctrine
Lead you and protect you as you interact with your wife’s mormon relatives? Give me a break!!! You guys talk like crazy people… need prayers and protection while you’re visiting relatives? Wow…
Everyone, please pray for me as I invite non-mormons over to my house this weekend for a surprise birthday party… Almost 90% of the people in my home will not be mormon… ooohhh, I need help!
Wolves… thanks for the prayers.
My good friend Aaron, 🙂
Of course you’re having a hard time following me, since my posting is facts, evidence and proof you wish to ignore. I compliment you on the great job of editing which you had to do to come up with the lame manipulations, twisting and splicing of quotes to receive the applause of your wonderful Choir and followers. Now Aaron where did you see me in anyway even think that the BOA is fraudulent. Let me set something straight friend, I believe that the Book of Abraham is as true as the Book of Mormon, and if the day comes that either one of them can be proved to be anything less then the testimony I have or what Joseph Smith claimed them to be, I will write you an apology and ask you what Religious sect I should join. 🙂
Aaron states, ” Gee says that the BoA is of “relative importance”, yet also says, “The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham”. If that’s true, doesn’t that in principle mean that the LDS Church and its founding prophet should still be affirmed as “true” even if Smith is found to have acted as a charlatan with respect to the BoA?
Dr. Gee stated, “The book of Abraham is true,” “I think it can be defended. I think it should be defended. But it’s not the be-all-and-end-all of either apologetics or research or the scriptures.”
What you have not proved Aaron, and that is Joseph Smith is a Charlatan. Good luck, but all I ever see from you is the peripheral over the top sensationalized hit pieces like the one you’re now doing on Dr. Gee.
Example, you state, “That is the heart of what our original post is meant to hit on. Not that Gee is affirming the BoA to be fraudulent, but rather that Gee is affirming that the BoA could be exposed as a fraud and yet the Church and its founding prophet should be continued to be affirmed as true.”
Please enlighten me and others, where in that whole talk did he claim the above, Hmmm interesting piece of manipulation and editing.
Regards, Richard 🙂
Kevi wrote “In any religion, is not the canonized works considered to be held in the highest regard?”
Actually, no.
Oh dear, Kevin, you’re thinking like a Christian. This mind-set does not apply in Mormonism. You’ll get no traction by appealling to scripture with these guys.
You’re not one of them, so they can easily ignore everything you say, even if you what you say is based entirely on their canonical scripture.
Yea, I thought my lead and protect statement would send someone over the edge. Why would I write something like that? I wasn’t actually referring to the physical but the spiritual, so I hope that clears that up. I think this discussion we are having regarding the fraudulent BoA points up the spiritual battle we are engaged in. One of the spiritual features of Mormonism is the spirit of deception. That’s why our Mormon friends here just don’t get it despite all of the clear evidence. We’ve got these Mormon folks continuing to believe because they think that God spoke to them and told them it was true. They even “felt” something which really confirmed the “truth” of Mormonism. That’s why this is a spiritual battle. When someone “believes” something and has it confirmed with a “feeling” it becomes reality to that person regardless if it’s true or not. Hence we get our Mormon contributors here just spinning away like crazy trying to protect what they’ve accepted emotionally.
So when I pray that someone will be “led and protected” as they engage in apologetic ministry to Mormons, I’m asking God to give them wisdom but also a hedge of protection against the spiritual forces they will be encountering.
“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strengh of His might. Put on the full armor of God thayt you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers against the posers against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.” It continues on in Ephesians 6:14-17.
The fact that Mormons don’t see it, when it’s right in front of their faces, speaks to the depth of the spiritual delusion they are under. We can be thankful, however, that today there are more exMormons and inactive Mormons than those engaged.
I have to say this is quite entertaining watching all the evs blow a gasket over Gee and the BoA.
Just imagine a man on a pallet board with no legs – a lot of yelling but they’re getting no where.
Ralph, and other defenders. Let’s do some common sense reasoning here. First of all, the early history of the LDS church is so clouded with re-writes how do we actually know that JS received the Melchezidek priesthood in 1829? As thoroughly documented by excommunicated-for-telling-the-truth researcher D. Michael Quinn tells us in Origins of Power, the first mention of the restoration of the Melchizidek priesthood does not appear until 1835 in the Evening and Morning Star. The revisionist dishonesty documented throughout your churches history should give anyone pause before citing a date.
Second, Adam could not have held the Melchizedek priesthood. Melchizekek was a contemporary of Abraham. Let’s say somewhere around 2000 B.C., long after Adam’s creation, and after the flood. Every male on earth save Noah and his three sons died in the flood. Did Noah and his sons possess the priesthood and pass it down? If it is so important why is it not mentioned before Genesis 14 when “Melchizedeck, priest of God Most High” comes to honor Abraham after his battle with the enemy kings? Was Melchizedek the only Melchizedek priest alive at the time? If not, why is his real name not given before stating that he “held the Melchizedek priesthood”?
It is because Melchizedek was a shadow of Christ to come. Many believe he was the pre-incarnate Jesus (a theophany), the second person of the Godhead who alone has a physical body. He was King of Salem (King of Peace). He is mentioned again in Psalm 110:4 in a prophecy about the Messiah who alone holds this priesthood. The book of Hebrews ch’s 5, 6, and 7 tell us that Jesus Christ, our high priest, is the only Melchizedek priest, so there is no longer a need for the Aaronic priesthood and its sacrifices. He alone intercedes for His elect before the throne of God. Consider this amazing fact the book of Hebrews reveal. It tells us that not only was Christ our perfect sacrifice, he was His own priest that offered Himself up for our ransom
Hey Hank, you and I both have something in common. We both believe the Book of Abraham is as true as the Book of Mormon. I got an idea, why don’t you change the Book of Abraham? Your could go wild and say that it doesn’t matter if people have black skin, it’s what is in their heart that counts. Or, you could go really wild and say the God doesn’t look at the outside appearance of man, but just the inside. Just a thought.
Mantis,
Can we get to the heart of the matter? Why is a pagan deity identified as the god of Abraham and thus the god of all sons of true faith?
Can you try to see the issue from someone else’s perspective? Yeah, to TBM’s it is true that not a whole lot of time is spent on the BoA in Mormon circles. However, if you were a non-Mormon wouldn’t this quote by a TBM raise an eyebrow? We did not make up the quote, and I fail to see how it is a hack-quote simply because someone takes a different view of it. When you can tell me a how a white head ends up on the black body of Anubis we can talk.
HankSaint,
The whole point is that it seems (key word) that Gee is implying that even if the BoA is bogus your church is still the one true church. Could not all here (including Mormons) agree that if the BoA is a fraud, fake, whatever – that its legitimacy goes towards the character of Joseph Smith and his claim to be a prophet? Would you not agree with the reasoning that if the BoM is false then the Mormon church cannot be true?