"The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity," the essay concludes. "The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys. The book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, His relationship to us as His children, and the purpose of this mortal life. The truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit."
Just recently I went back and read the chapter on Kolob, and it reads like crazy talk! Seriously, it sounds like some bad sci fi wanna be writer wrote it. Talking all kinds of crazy things like planets and stars, and the names:
" 13 And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven."
I mean, what kind of crazy is this? Yet this is profound eternal truth?!?
Well that's just wonderful. The Morg puts out a scholarly article to defend the book of Abraham but says that, "The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate"
Kinda like we can defend it, but you can't debate it. As in we get to make all the rules, you get to follow the rules. Rule #1 Don't use your brain. Rule #2 Refer to rule number 1. Ta Dah!! Book of Abraham Was devinely translated. Easy as that.
"The veracity and value...cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book's translation and historicity."
Of course not, because the Book of Abraham doesn't exist. It's a fucking hologram from Joseph's over-active imagination. I doubt any reputable scholar would consent to debate anyway.
How about a companion statement on the veracity and historicity of the Kinderhook Plates?
BYUboner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about a companion statement on the veracity and historicity of the Kinderhook Plates?
From the essay: "On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world."
This is true. The BoA talks about there being Egyptians and there were Egyptians. It also mentions humans, and there were humans during that period of time.
How could Joey known this things? Let's all go and give our 10%.
On a little more serious of a note, that is a terrible essay. It's not going to help anyone who is starting to see the (un)light.
"On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world." Using that logic, I guess the essay would conclude the movie "Titanic" told a true story.
So what about the fact that although the bulk of the papyri are missing the BOA contains two "translations" made by horny Joe and those translations are complete bullshit.
What I got from the essay: Joey never claimed to know Egyptian. And we have no way of knowing how close to the facsimiles the hieroglyphics were. So after he received the text of the BOA by REVELATION, he saw the pictures and assumed they were pictures related to the revelation he'd been given. So he did his best to relate them to the things he'd learned about the ancient world (gotta throw that word "ancient" in there as many times as we can--that makes it authentic). So he was wrong, hey, he tried, but he never claimed to be able to translate. But we DO know the text is correct. It wasn't God's idea to illustrate the book, just a whim ol Joe came up with. Give him a break. He was trying to make it more interesting. He wasn't sure anyone would be cuckoo for kokaubeam.
I love to read these essays and try to figure out at what point in my mormondumb it wouldn't have worked. This one would have made me content as a TBM. It was long enough that I wouldn't have seriously read it, I would just have been ok with the fact that "scholars" (who must know it's schit since no one wants to put a name to it), had addressed this so-called troubling issue and have it covered. And there are plenty of references, which I would not have looked close enough at to see that they are all referencing mormon scriptures, talks, and writers.
However, at my questioning stage, I would have read what the issues were and then gone to the essay for a serious answer and gone, "ummm, that makes no sense. Joe claimed it was written by the hand of Abraham. He identified the facsimile completely incorrectly. Why would God not give him revelation about the correctness of that after he had given him all that specific stuff about the text." So obviously these essays are written to circle the wagons with the base. They are pretty sure that anyone who is seriously questioning is already lost.
Mainstreaming and defending the truth of the BoA are mutually exclusive. Kolob is one of the "pearls" (ie batsh!t crazy ideas) in the BoA that is not to be cast before swine (ie normal people). If you are trying to mainstream (ie become more like the catholic church) then it would be best to de-emphasise the BoA for a generation before dropping it completely.
I suppose they are trying to reduce the number of people who leave when they discover the truth about the BoA, but in the long run I think they are painting themselves into a doctrinal corner.
The commenters also ignored the fact that the facsimiles exist, so the idea that the original papyri aren't around is a moot point. He lied, he was a fraud and all people can point to is faith, well lots of study led me to the conclusion that since Joseph Smith was a liar the church is false. Point A took me to point B.
I just read the latest essay by the mormon church and once again I am completely bewildered by the fact that intelligent people could write such a patently ridiculous essay! I did love all of the footnotes. Citing their own scholars and previous works by Joseph Smith. Isn't this a bit like Adolph Hitler writing an essay and citing other members of the Nazi High Command as reliable sources. This may be the worst essay to date.
It's also the worst issue in regards to the truthiness of the church. Since there is an actual artifact, the facsimiles, which have been "translated" and printed for members to see, and those translations are patently wrong, it is easy to conclude the book is a fraud.
If the BOA is a fraud, why not the other supposed translations where no artifact can be found?
BOA, as far as the church was concerned, was one of the dumbest things JS ever did. Holding to the truthfulness of the BOA, is one of dumbest things the modern church could possible do. But, then, they went off and done it.