“Save Kolob”: Church News Says Book of Abraham “Not Central to the Restored Gospel”

This posting has to be a joke, right? Is this from “The Sugar Beet” website? I cannot believe that anyone would not consider the Book of Abraham “central to the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ”. As a 30 year convert to the Church, the BoA is most central to our understanding of the restored gospel, the pre-mortal existence, and the life of one of God’s greatest prophets.

You really are joking, aren’t you?

#1 It’s no joke… but it’s not quite as controversial when read in the context it was given:

“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 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.”

I see a missinterpretation of what John Gee was attempting to say about how LDS apologists should deal with critics of the book of Abraham. And, now, John Gee may have to clarify what he said. However, John Gee did state: “The Book of Abraham is true.”
Just because John Gee mentioned 6 central points of belief does not free Rulon Jeffries and others for having “unorthodox” beliefs “about a whole range of issues”.
I don’t see where the importance of the Book of Abraham was diminished by John Gee. Perhaps he could have used better terminology when he expressed his views. But I don’t see the need to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Hymn331:

“fictitious respondents?” – and I thought they are supposed to tell the truth in these preambles.

Madam Curie:

Permit me to clarify. This is a post where someone made something out of nothing. However, ‘nothing’ – is the empty space between 2 measurable particles, – which is a state that may not exist.

Well, let’s look at Andrew’s post for anything that could be considered hyperbole or fiction:

First clue: “High Priests Groups world-wide…” Andrew would have to have quite a polling organization at his disposal.

Next clue: “High Priest Group leader for the Spanish Fork 87th ward.” Spanish Fork may have that many wards, but I doubt it.

Another clue: This one is marginal, I admit. “Rulon” and “LaVerl.” Both great names but both in the same post gives it away to me.

Final clue: “…proof that orthodoxy in the Church has been narrowed to these six “central” points.” Yeah, right. Don’t forget the earrings.

I may have missed any other subtleties.

Brilliant post, Andrew.

Darn. I was hoping it was going to say we finally get to stop taking *one* thing so freaking literally, but all it says is that we should stick our fingers in our ears and say “It’s true! It’s true! La la la la la, I can’t hear you!”

Why oh why is there no metaphor or myth allowed in this church!?! Why do we have to accept everything as fact, even when it clearly isn’t?

Quote of the day: “Why oh why is there no metaphor or myth allowed in this church!?! Why do we have to accept everything as fact, even when it clearly isn’t?” I’m going to call it Mytha’s Lament. Very appropriate given your moniker. I’m with you — we can do without so much literalism.

Mr. Gee is using the famous “it isn’t essential to my salvation” argument. He may very well be correct if we are moving from a position which accepts that the Church is true in the first place. In other words, we accept the “restored gospel” as being real in some form or another. Unfortunately that is not the place where critics of the Church are coming from, rather they are challenging the “restored gospel”, particularly Mr. Gee’s third point that “God speaks to man by the power of the Holy Ghost”, ie, Joseph Smith, restorer of the Book of Abraham by the power Holy Ghost. While theologically speaking the Book of Abraham is not intended to function in the same manner as The book of Mormon, by serving as a witness/evidence to the claim that Joseph Smith was called of God, it nevertheless represents a religious body of work claimed to have been brought forth in a similar mystical fashion. Therefore when speaking to non-members and critics it is not sufficient to argue away complexities surrounding the origins of the Book of Abraham by appealing to Mormon theological arguments, ie, “it really isn’t central to our message”. In other words, regardless of how mainstream the doctrinal themes contained in the Book of Abraham have been to LDS discourse in past sixty years, the fact remains that the book stands as more evidence to Joseph Smiths claims to prophetic legitimacy in either the affirmative, or to the contrary. In short, the credibility of the Book of Abraham is tied to directly to Mr. Gee’s third point that men (Joseph Smith) are able to recieve revelations from God. In this way, the Book of Abraham is every bit as essential as The Book of Mormon, given that neither book has yet become a recognized historical narrative.

First of all, I applaud the Church News – and by extension – the Brethren for dealing with something that has been self-evident since at least 1912: i.e. that there are parts of the Book of Abraham (particularly chapter 1 and the first 20 verses of chapter 3, and the interpretation of the facsimiles) that are problematic. I don’t want to get into it in detail because this will obviously be a sensitive topic to some. I, personally, have taken solence in the fact that, although it was printed in the Nauvoo newspaper (Times and Seasons?), Joseph Smith never presented it for canonization – something that was done long after his death.

Is it really news to anyone on here that the Book of Abraham wasn’t necessarily “translated” from the papyri, but “inspired” by the presence of the papyri? It can still be an important book, however, as that’s much the same way that the Book of Mormon was “translated”. Accounts suggest that the plates remained covered, and sometimes weren’t even in the same room, when Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon. Perhaps this is a type for how God reveals things to prophets – that it’s not necessarily a “translation” but more an “inspiration”.

Andrew,

You make some excellent points.

For what it’s worth, there were several threads on MADB about this, and there was significant disagreement about what exactly Gee was trying to communicate. I was even accused of dishonesty at one point for saying that Gee was trying to downplay the BoA. His closest acolytes seem to believe that his purpose was to downplay the significance of the method of translation (on which so much controversy has focused) as compared to the truth and content of the book. But if that was his point, then in my opinion he communicated it rather poorly.

-Chris

Clay Whipkey:

I may not have been clear in comment. I was intending to suggest that “critics” generally stand in opposition to faith in all of it’s forms, rather I was specifically referring to critics of Joseph Smith or the LDS Church. I for one am not opposed to the idea that God could speak to man, however I don’t believe Joseph Smith’s claims to have done so. To put a finer point on it, Gee suggests six points that concern his view of the “restored gospel” where apologists should concentrate their efforts in defense of the Church. He suggests that the debates surrounding the authenticity/origins of the Book of Abraham have become tired and confused, and that furthermore they really do not pertain to any one of his six points. Third on his list is the idea that God communicates to man via the Holy Ghost. I am assuming that even though his wording here allows for a domain much broader than just the Prophet and Church executive councils, this issue also has particular reference to the resoration, ie, the First Vision among other revelations. I am arguing that the Book of Abraham and it’s origin is directly tied to his six points. In other words, Church critics are challenging point number 3 as it relates specifically to Joseph Smith, though not necessarily the broader notion that God communicates to man much more generally than the LDS Church.

To read the whole talk, see http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_The_Larger_Issue.html

I found it interesting that the apologetic position is now the absence of evidence, much like UFO’s, orbiting teapots, and Big Foot.

A neat quote from the talk itself:

Another example of how the Book of Abraham matches its day is the mention in the Book of Abraham of human sacrifice after the manner of the Egyptians. We know from archaeological evidence that the Egyptians practiced human sacrifice at that time, in areas that they dominated outside of Egypt. This archaeological evidence corresponds in practice to later ritual texts that describe how do human sacrifice. It also corresponds to historical records from Egypt that detail the circumstances under which human sacrifice occurred in Abraham’s day. Almost none of this material was available even to Nibley. This shows how much the picture can change in a few years. We also know the type of people targeted for human sacrifice: sbi, rebels or apostates (the term is used for both). Abraham says that his “fathers . . . utterly refused to hearken to my voice” (Abraham 1:5) when he condemned them for “having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given them , unto the worship of the gods of the heathen” (Abraham 1:5), instead they “endeavored to take away my life” (Abraham 1:7). There was no separation of church and state in ancient Egypt and the Pharaoh was the head of both. So to revolt against his authority, whether religious or political, made someone a rebel and subject to a ritualized death penalty. Archaeological evidence for this practice was first discovered about fifty years ago, but more archaeological evidence has appeared in the last ten years.

The talk is well worth reading.

Let’s face it, much of what we talk about in Church and care about as individual members is not central to the gospel either.

Amen, Holden (#32). How can Bro. Gee say that the Book of Abraham, as an object of attack, is “simply not important to latter-day saints?” He doesn’t speak for me. If Joseph said he translated it, why can’t we all be assured he meant the traditional method of translation? If it was direct revelation, say that. Saying that his use of the term “translation” meant something different seems disingenuous. In the words of Robert Frost (“Choose Something Like a Star”), “use language we can comprehend.” Or, in the language of the D&C (1:24), “given unto my servants…after the manner of their language.” What complicates things more is that the first edition of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph as “author and proprietor,” when we are told that he was the translator there as well. We now know it was some form of direct revelation through the Urim and Thummim, or straight to “The Seer” as noted by Richard Holzapfel (“Horseapples” as we affectionately called him as our seminary teacher in Orange County in the mid-eighties) in his recent address (see BYU Education Week address, currently reported on Mormon Times).

I’m curious if anyone knows if Gee is regarded in LDS scholarly circles with the same respect as Nibley? Who else would be the leading apologist for Egyptian studies?

No doubt some things are more central to the church’s mission than others. Consider the volume of plates that Mormon went through to come up with what we have today. Much was necessarily left out. And even then, most of what was on the plates was sealed and Joseph was instructed to leave them sealed.

Apparently, what we have is enough in the mind of a God to serve its purpose.

That said, I think Bro Gee needs to be careful to say that what he states is his opinion and he isn’t speaking for the church.

The Lord allowed the difficulties that exist with the Book of Abraham for His own purposes.

Maybe it has something to do with the following scripture, I don’t know, but I suspect it does:

…Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 4:14)

The question I have is why would he want them to stumble? I answer this question because he loves them. If he didn’t give them something that aiding their stumbling His judgment at the last day would necessarily be more severe. This allows Him to extend greater mercy which is what the Savior died for.

The Lord has no pleasure in melting out punishment.

1 ¶ Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye
(Old Testament | Ezekiel 18:31 – 32)

#32 & #35: Holden and Hymn331

I would be careful in how much weight you place on the word “translation”. In common use today, we think of “translation” as someone actually looking physically at characters, determining what they mean, and expressing the same thought in another language. This can also be done orally, etc. Using the traditional use of the word “translation”, the Book of Mormon would come forth much like the pictures we have used in the Church for decades, of Joseph actually studying the plates and having their meaning revealed to him directly.

In reality, it seems that “translation” is used with a much looser definition than that above. There are a number of references if you’re interested that are easily found (including a relatively recent talk by Russell M Nelson to mission presidents) but it appears from most eye-witness accounts that Joseph actually looked into either the Urim & Thummim or a stone in a hat for the Book of Mormon translation. The plates appear to have been covered with a cloth while this was going on, and at times, they weren’t even physically present in the same room as Joseph and the scribe. He would read words off the stone and the scribe would write them down. This doesn’t deny the fact that the process was done through inspiration from God and are holy words, but it isn’t quite the same as we would typically define “translation” in our day. It’s basically just semantics, but I would consider this more that Joseph was “inspired” as he dictated the Book of Mormon. I would also assume that the words he was inspired to write corresponded in some way to what was on the plates. This may bother some people, but if we accept that Nephi or Moses or any other prophet could be inspired by God to write truth, why not in the case of Joseph Smith?

Accepting this, it is also relatively easy to accept the Book of Abraham as containing truth, with Joseph Smith being inspired as he wrote/dictated them, yet not assuming that they are a direct “translation” that directly correspond to the characters on the papyrus.

My only fear is that if you base your testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet on the fact that he directly “translated” the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham according to how we understand “translation”, you may ultimately be disappointed. I think the whole point of the article is a slow acceptance of that fact and a focus on the message.

To me it is interesting to see how the message changes somewhat from Bro Gee’s The book of Abraham is true, the big picture, that is not to say Church members can or should forego the Book of Abraham and so on to what is the main thrust of this post.

But I think I see what you are getting at. Personally it would probably be a deal breaker to see the church remove the book of Abraham from the standard works or even to see some academic water it down. Losing things like they the Gods, Kolob, or thou wast chosen before thou wast born or this is my work and my glory would be absolutely devastating for a passionately believing Mormon like myself.

Concerning the BoM I suppose he means that if we accept it as a literal record of an ancient people then it follows that Joseph Smith didn’t just make up the standard works. But it all starts with accepting the BoM as true.

#23 Chris Smith ~ I would say it sounds like he’s trying to downplay the BoA myself, but I’m not the least bit surprised you’d get a hostile reaction to that assessment from the MADB crowd.

His list of six essential things is interesting because so little of it is unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here’s what I would agree with as an evangelical Christian:

God exists; Jesus Christ is His Son; God talked and still talks with men [and women] 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.

The part in brackets is what I would add. I’m sure that’s what Gee intended, but come on, it’s the 21st century. Time to make gender-inclusive language a habit.

The part in italics is iffy. I don’t strictly disagree with it, but it’s worded in a rather works-oriented fashion that I don’t like.

The part I’ve struck out is what I definitely disagree with. Everything else I agree with, and that’s a lot of what Gee deemed as “essential.” So believing in modern-day prophets and apostles, priesthood authority, and temple work isn’t essential?

Sweet! This is exactly the direction I want Mormonism to go in. Proceed. 8)

I was at the FAIR Conference on the day John Gee spoke. On the whole, I didn’t think he said anything all that controversial. While stating an opinion (not reiterating any official stance), he did say the Book of Abraham was less important than the other Standard Works though. I found his evidence–ie, that it is cited the least–to be flawed, however. I can’t remember if he accounted for its relative size, but I would argue Abraham is the least cited because it is the least understood of all our Standard Works. It’s really the kind of book you study and ponder at home…not good Sunday School material.

Mike S.–”This may bother some people, but if we accept that Nephi or Moses or any other prophet could be inspired by God to write truth, why not in the case of Joseph Smith?”

My concern there is that not only did Joseph Smith say he translated the plates and from the papyrus, all succeeding prophets and apostles have said the same thing. I really don’t care what the process was. However, if what is in these books is not what was on the plates/papyrus that would go against what every member of the church has been led to believe since day one.

“My only fear is that if you base your testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet on the fact that he directly “translated” the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham according to how we understand “translation”, you may ultimately be disappointed.”

Since my testimony is already lost you need not fear on my behalf, although honestly I appreciate your concern for all. I am still a Latter-Day Saint, but my heart is elsewhere. There are those here who call me an apostate. The importance of truth or falsehood is still relevant to me, however.

To me, it seems that the real issue regarding Gee’s talk is why the Church News decided to print it. That, I think, we would all like to know.

Holden Caulfield:

The power of revelation should be considered [#26]. Joseph Smith was a ‘special’ person, whos gift of revelation was considered to be great. There is no doubt that the Sender has even greater power to ‘send’. Revelation is mysterious enough that it would not be unusual for Joseph Smith to gaze upon an artifact, with writing on it, from Abraham’s or Moroni’s time period and thru a combination of vision and translation come up with a true interpretation that could not be duplicated by science or anyone else that did not have the gift of revelation.

The apologists continue to grasp at straws…..fewer and fewer straws all the time

Working Mother:

What would be the objection to having all of the Mormons who weren’t aware of the controversey, to be suddenly introduced to it?

Working Mother (48), acknowledging “the controversy” regarding the Book of Abraham here is hardly a newsworthy thing in itself. “The controversy” has existed for decades. LDS scholars have acknowledged it for decades. Nibley and others have written scores of books about the controversy. FARMS and FAIR openly acknowledge the controversy on their websites. Pearl of Great Price students at BYU and Institute are often made aware of the controversy. The shelves of Deseret Book contain books acknowledging the controversy. And as most recently evidenced here, the Church News is acknowledging the controversy in an official church publication being sent to subscribing LDS members.

With Church News articles acknowledging the controversy, one can hardly suggest the controversy is some big secret. So a post like this that acknowledges the controversy isn’t something you should be surprised about.

Holden:

This week I’m working on four tax returns for me, my mother, my mother’s estate, and my mother’s trust. Today I’m very much in envy of accountants.

#60 – Not all of us, Ron.

Reading Gee’s article in The Farms Review from 2007, he collected reports from various church members who were witnesses to the papyri and summarized their reports in 4 descriptions:

1. Papyri preserved under glass
2. A long roll of manuscript
3. Another roll
4. Two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaph’s,

Continuing from #63, Gee’s article reports from eyewitness accounts that the Book of Abraham was translated from a long roll of manuscript, which is not among any of the items recovered.

If people are concluding that “what is in these books is not what was on the plates/papyrus” AND one of the items of papyrus is not among the items recovered, is the argument that:

1. There never were more items of papyrus, so what exists now cannot explain the BoA?
2. The modern translations of the fascimiles don’t match the translations produced by JS, so all of the Book must be in error?
3. All of JS “translations” were fraudulent, therefore BoA is too?

Has the report that items of papyrus logged in the Wood Museum in 1856 were destroyed by the Great Chicago fire been debunked?

Rigel (65): The purpose of this post was not to challenge the authenticity of the BofA, but simply to comment on the Church News and Dr. Gee’s decision to take the position that the BofA is “not central to the restored gospel” in response to the numerous challenges to the BofA’s authenticity. As the man who one could say stands in the shoes of the late Dr. Nibley regarding BofA issues, Dr. Gee’s statement is certainly a stark contrast to Dr. Nibley’s previous statement that without the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, we are “just another church.”

I think I’m aware of the main challenges to the BofA authenticity, but I don’t want to go into them here and now in response to your question in #65. People can go to the FARMS or FAIR websites to find out all about that. However, I’d be happy to privately discuss those challenges I understand them, as well as the apologetic responses to them. I’ll shoot an email to the email address you used when posting your comment.

Cheers

Sxark (68), Gee’s list of six “central” points goes beyond D&C 19:23-33 to include things like the literal historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. As I mentioned in my original post, that’s what is particularly puzzling to me. If you’re going to go beyond the minimalist language of D&C 19 and so many other minimalist scriptural definitions of the Gospel, why include the literal historical authenticity of one book of revealed scripture but not another?

Sxark (70): The Book of Abraham not only refers to “God” but also “the Lord” over 20 times. In addition, the Book of Abraham refers to a person that Latter-day Saints recognize as Christ in these verses:

“And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.”

This scripture is cited often to established that Christ was chosen as our Savior in the pre-existence.

So I don’t see a lack of reference to Christ as the reason for including the BOM but not the BofA in the list of what’s “central” to the restored gospel. The explanation that Dr. Gee proffered was that the BofA has been cited less than 1% of General Conference talks for the past several decades. In my view, excluding a book of revealed scripture as “not central” based on frequency of citation in General Conference talks is an insufficient justification because: (1) General Conference talks are only a small slice of official Church publications, and as I explained in the original post, the BofA is treated as “central” in our Gospel Principles manual; (2) it’s not really fair to compare just the number of times the BofA is cited when you consider how much shorter it is than all the other books of scripture; that would be like saying the book of Fourth Nephi isn’t central to the restored Gospel because of how seldom it is cited. In fact, if you compared how often the BofA is cited taking into account its length, I bet you’d find it’s cited a disproportionately high number of times for how short it is. You can always use statistical exercises to demonstrate something is either less important or more important according what you want it to be; (3) regardless of how long the BofA is, or how often it is cited, the fact remains that Joseph Smith said that it is a translation by the gift and power of God of the writings made by Abraham’s own hand, and I think it’s safer to assume that if God determined it was important enough to reveal a book of scripture to mankind through the Prophet who ushered in the Restoration, we ought not dismiss it today as “not central to the restored gospel”.

Sxark (72), your original question in 70 asked whether the BofA contains “references to Christ,” so I provided references to Christ. And I think it’s fair to say that BofA was Atonement-related, because it relates to Christ volunteering and being chosen to perform the Atonement.

Sxark (74), there are very few books of scripture, defined in the narrowest sense of “book” (e.g., Book of Abraham, Book of Esther, Book of Job) that would meet the criteria of containing “all the principles of the Gospel”. But that doesn’t seem to have been Dr. Gee’s criteria anyway, nor can I see any basis for the arbitrary assumption that a book of scripture must contain “ALL the principles of the Gospel” (whatever those principles are, since we can debate all day about whether something is a principle, and debate which definition of “the Gospel” we should use). Dr. Gee obviously could not have been including or excluding books from his list of six “central” points based on whether they contain “all the principles of the gospel” because he did not even include the Bible in his list of six central points, and you CAN find a fullness of the Gospel in the Bible (read the Introduction to the Book of Mormon).

So once again, the search for Dr. Gee’s criteria for including or excluding books of scripture from his list of six central points proves elusive. Back to his cited percentage-of-times-quoted-in-General-Conference justification for excluding the Book of Abraham, whenever you use such a criteria, you inevitably raise the question: What percentage-of-times-quoted is the dividing line between inclusion and exclusion in a list of “central” components of the gospel? 75%? 50%? 25%? And most importantly, who in our church has the authority to decide such issues: the President of the Church, or a scholar?

I don’t think a mountain is being a mole-hill here; this is a significant change from what we’ve been told previously about the Book of Abraham. But based on the pace of changes within the Church historically, I don’t think the membership is being prepped for a major reduction in the Standard Works either. We may be seeing the beginning of a change, but we won’t know for a few more years.

“that would be like saying the book of Fourth Nephi isn’t central to the restored Gospel because of how seldom it is cited”

That logic makes it difficult to defend Gee’s statement. Perhaps a Church News writer will be looking for a new job, or transferred to manage a Deseret Books store in Abilene, Texas. If we are, however, being prepped for a change, the removal of the fascimiles from the PoGP would seem the most likely move. It really isn’t helpful for new converts (or long term members for that matter)to study the Egyptian hieroglyphs and their interpretations. They can simply be placed with the Lectures on Faith as inspired teachings that do not need to be published with the scriptures.

Rick Grunder–thanks for your addition to the conversation.

Rick, #80:

Thank you for effectively placing great restriction on the wiggle room