Time to Study the Old Testament Again Part 7 – Pearl of Great Price (PofGP) and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)

“If he was a Prophet and able to receive revelation from God and thus able to provide these revelations and scriptures, then we should be satisfied it comes from God and is authentic.”

Not good logic. That a prophet is able to receive revelation and produce scripture, does not necessarily mean that he did so on one particular occasion.

Why is that not a correct statement?

Fascinating stuff. I still think that over time, the church will continue to de-emphasize the Book Of Abraham until it becomes something akin to the Journal of Discourses. As a missionary using the old missionary discussions, I was instructed not to bring it up except for the part in discussion 2 where we read Abraham 3:1-3 to discuss the pre-existence. Even then, we were instructed to keep discussion of the Book of Abraham to a bare minimum. With the switch to Preach my Gospel, it looks like they’re not having missionaries discuss the pre-existence at all. Sometimes I get the feeling that the Book of Abraham is more problematic than it’s worth.

Thomas,

“That a prophet is able to receive revelation and produce scripture, does not necessarily mean that he did so on one particular occasion. Why is that not a correct statement.”

I think a. we’re not talking about a single occasion but a series of occasions over a length of time. b. We are also talking about, in some cases, the very foundations of church doctrine.

steve,

I think that discussions of the book of Abraham actually transcend the mantle of the Missionaries. They are to “cry repentance unto the people” and teach them about the Savior, the restoration of the gospel and the Living Prophet. There are many subjects they usually do not discuss with a potential convert. This can be somewhat problematic later on, but it would mean that no one joins the church until they are exposed to everything. We find that even members that grow up in the church may not get that kind of exposure.

Jeff,

“Evidence of a person’s character is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” I think that’s a good common sense rule — because not everybody always acts in accord with his general character. Similarly, “when God makes the prophet, He does not unmake the man.” There is no guarantee that a person’s general character as a prophet, means he acted in that character on a particular occasion.

I’m simply saying that the tautology “Joseph was a prophet, therefore, the Book of Abraham is ‘authentic’” doesn’t necessarily follow. If you have simply chosen to accept Joseph, and his entire prophetic output, as authentic, then that’s fine — but the foundation of your acceptance of any particular portion of his output is nothing more or less than your general decision to accept it along with the rest. It doesn’t logically flow from the premise of your having accepted any other portion of his output.

#5: Thomas

I, too, agree that not everything brought forth by a prophet or apostle is necessarily “authentic” or “true”. JS taught that polygamy was wrong while he was secretly practicing it. BY talked about men on the moon. McConkie taught that blacks would essentially never have the priesthood until the end of the millennium. It goes on and on. We can still accept and respect the office that someone holds without necessarily being forced to believe that everything that person said was absolutely the truth.

Thomas, #5

I am not in total disagreement with what you say, however, then how does one judge what a prophet says is true?. I would not trust you, per se to decide for me whether a prophet is speaking as such. I believe is true or not. it is up to each one of us to make that decision. It is ultimately the Spirit that provides that testimony, I believe. One can take a cynical approach to all of it and talk themselves out of the church. I see that as a relatively easy thing to do.

Mike S, let try to keep the discussion on the Prophet Joseph and this work we are discussing. One can make that claim against most everyone. We are taking about revelation, not teaching or opinion.

To me, either this canon of scripture we use is profitable for our use or not. If it is brought about under false pretenses, then it is of questionable value. I was not dissecting every statement made by every Church leader throughout all time.

Re: 4.

True, although that really wasn’t my point. My point was that I sense the church over time has and will continue to de-emphasize the BoA due to all the negative publicity it has received. I used my mission experience to highlight an example of that.

Jeff,

If I were a prickly sort, I might take issue with that statement “One can take a cynical approach to all of it and talk themselves out of the church.” The basic foundation of faith is the witness of the Spirit — a gift of God, creating in us a desire to believe. Beyond that, much is left to our own reasoning. Missionaries have to use rational persuasion, after all, to teach investigators to recognize the witness of the Spirit for what it is. Not only do we have to use logic as one of our tools to measure whether a spiritual experience is in fact a personal revelation, since spiritual promptings are often less than specific, we have to use reasoning to decide what they signify.

I do not believe it is at all “cynical” to insist that when we employ the tool of reason in examining sacred things, we use good reasoning.

Define “false pretenses.” The Book of Abraham was certainly presented — evidently with Joseph’s approval, if not actually at his specific direction — as a literal translation of the Chandler papyri. As best as we can tell, it is not. How does this relate to whether we find the Book of Abraham spiritually profitable for our use? If it turns out that the Book of Deuteronomy was fabricated at the time of Josiah (long after its purported author Moses was dead), does that affect its spiritual profitability?

My comment was mostly meant in response to #5, but I can certainly see how the discussion could veer off.

Back to the OP, I think JS brought forth many things as you mentioned above, and I accept them as “true” regardless of the reliability of their origin. Perhaps “inspired” is a better word than “true”, because I don’t really know what “true” implies.

The problem with defining something as “true” is that it also involves the reader. If it was perfectly possible to know what JS meant 100% with any of his writings, there wouldn’t be differing opinions. Some people felt that things in the PofGP implied that blacks could never have the priesthood – others didn’t. The CofC uses many of the same works of JS as we do, yet seem to have quite a different interpretation of many things. Which of these is “true” – I don’t know.

The bigger question in my mind is what we do with them. I don’t think all of the “answers” are in a single book. I use the BofM, the Book of Abraham and the JST as study helps to try to wrap my mind around what is the “ultimate” truth. I also use the Qu’ran, the Baghavad Gita, the Dharmasada, and other things. I see truth in all of them. I accept JS as a prophet and am thankful for what he brought forth, but I think it is much more than that.

Because of this, the true historicity of the BofA doesn’t really matter to me. It doesn’t matter whether JS actually translated characters or had his face in a hat while the plates were covered in another area. Truth will stand on its own.

Jeff, thanks for the post.

As for the logical leap at the end of the post, I don’t see the issue. Your suggestion is that if we accept Joseph as prophet and capable of producing these works, then we should accept them as true. Seems to me a fair suggestion, and a rational one. (I read this “should” as a suggestion, not a commandment.)

Of course once we take that first step, then further study may confirm the truthfulness (acknowledging Mike S’ discomfort with that word, but not knowing how else to paraphrase Moroni) of those things just as it can do so with the Book of Mormon.

I’m not a big fan of the notion that one thing proves another, like if the Book of Mormon is true, then everything Joseph said was right, or if you believe in the Savior you must also accept the Book of Mormon as true. But I do see that acceptance of one may lead to the other over time.

There is clearly a place for faith in this process, and the suggestion at the end of the post is a good start on that path in my view.

[...] This apparently posed enough of an issue for Joseph Smith that in the Joseph Smith Translation (Jeff Spector gives a great overview at Mormon Matters), there is a footnote suggesting that God isn’t the one who hardens the Pharaoh’s [...]

Thomas, #9

I am sorry, I meant cynical in the broadest sense. Because, for me, the historicity of the entire Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious underpinnings can easily be called into question. Yes, there is some archaeological evidence, yes, there is some documentary transmission of ancient records, but one still has to connect the dots via faith.

It would be very easy, using logic to say. “There is no physical evidence of the existence of Moses, therefore, I cannot conclude that he ever existed.” A person could be very justified in their thinking.

False Pretenses? Simple. That Joseph made it all up. That he used the word “translated” because he, Joseph, meant the word translated in the traditional sense. Even though he had no skills in that area. But neither did anyone else in that area, so who would question him? That’s what I meant. I don’t believe that, but that would be what I was referring to.

“The Book of Abraham was certainly presented — evidently with Joseph’s approval, if not actually at his specific direction — as a literal translation of the Chandler papyri. As best as we can tell, it is not.”

Yes, I think it was presented that way. The only out is that the actual papyrus from where this “translation” came is not among the Papyri that was rediscovered and given to the Church.

the Book of Moses was clearly given through revelation, as the D&C. If Joseph has said that the same thing applied to the Book of Abraham, the arguments against it would be different.

Mike S,

“Because of this, the true historicity of the BofA doesn’t really matter to me. It doesn’t matter whether JS actually translated characters or had his face in a hat while the plates were covered in another area. Truth will stand on its own.”

Then you and I are in agreement.

As for the Black and the Priesthood thing, I think that it was a conclusion looking for support of the scriptures. In other words, you had this edict and so church leaders and other had to find a way to justify it through the scriptures. They didn’t do a very good job because it really wasn’t there to support it.

But, as you and I both know, it is easy to take the vaguest of scriptures and apply it to something.

“The bottom line is this, it all comes down to the belief that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God or not. If he was a Prophet and able to receive revelation from God and thus able to provide these revelations and scriptures, then we should be satisfied it comes from God and is authentic.”

Is that why the historicity doesn’t matter to you and MikeS?

Jeff: Re #12

The difference in the way the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham are presented as revelation vs translation has a lot to do with why the CofChrist includes the former in documents which are part of the canon, but not the latter.

The historicity of the BofM presents different issues because it preceded everything else. If you don’t have a viable belief in the BofM as inspired (in whatever sense one personally wishes to define the term) why bother with the D&C or anything else afterward?

#14 GBSmith

I don’t quite agree with that sentiment. My reading of what you quoted implies that a belief that something “comes from God and is authentic” is a result of believing that that is so because JS was a prophet. My logic does not flow that way. I believe that JS was “A” prophet in the sense of revealing truth to the world that helps us be better people and get closer to God. But I also think there are more prophets that what we have in the LDS Church. I don’t necessarily trust anything “just” because anyone said it, including Joseph Smith, as he was a man just like the rest of us with his own feelings, passions, opinions, etc.

The reason the historicity doesn’t matter to me is the same reason. Truth should be able to stand on its own. Everything religious we have (ie. BofM, D&C, etc) has “good” things that resonate with me and make me a better person. There are also things that seem “out-of-place”, like quotes of Shakespeare and talking about things presumptively in the Americans for which there is no evidence. But I also see truth in many, many other areas, from other Christian and non-Christian sources that have helped me every bit as much as what JS brought forth. I also consider Muhammed a prophet. I also consider Buddha a prophet.

So I approach things more ambiguously. JS had a number of flaws (or things I can’t accept – like marrying other mens’ wives), but he brought forth much truth. I accept the truth and ignore the flaws. Similarly with our other prophets. ETB certainly had some crazy ideas, but he had some good ones. I don’t accept any single person or book or denomination as containing “ALL” truth.

Firetag,

“The historicity of the BofM presents different issues because it preceded everything else. If you don’t have a viable belief in the BofM as inspired (in whatever sense one personally wishes to define the term) why bother with the D&C or anything else afterward?”

I think that was a key part of the point I was making. But, the fact remains is that we do not know the exact method of translation that Joseph used for the BoA. While there appeared to be a physical thing, a Papyrus, it does not mean Joseph “used” the physical papyrus to exact the “translation.” We pretty much know that he didn’t translate the BoM using the plates but most likely a seer stone in a hat.

The D&C is pure revelation, so if we are willing to accept the D&C in that manner, the others should be able to be accepted in the same manner.

GBSmith, #14

“Is that why the historicity doesn’t matter to you and MikeS?”

I wasn’t saying it didn’t matter, only implying that one cannot be selective about which historicity one is willing to accept and which one is not.

WRT the BoA, there is enough doubt in my mind that not all papyri that Joseph possessed is around to determine whether or not, it contained the BoA. Certainly, the fragments that remain have been proven NOT to contain that text.

On the other hand, I am also willing to accept the idea that Joseph’s “translation” was a revelatory one.

I have to note that the Book of Abraham is really an endowment text. Seen in that context it suddenly makes a good deal more sense.

I’ll leave it at that for now.

Stephen M,

I like that. It makes sense with the Book of the Dead idea.

I read through Abraham several times today and was concerned about several things. The facsimiles, the multiple new words, the description of religion and history of Egypt, the reference to the flood and preservation of the blood of the canaanites, the repeated referencing of two of something, and the chapters related to the spiritual creation with the repeated use of the term “the Gods” are all things that I had trouble with. I can understand Jeff suspending any reliance on historicity given his level of faith and that some of the scrolls are missing. But for MikeS believing a generic truth such as Abraham’s demonstration of faith is one thing but the other truths, the names, the references to Kolob. etc., the reference to a spiritual creation by “the Gods” are another and totally dependent on historicity. There are several selected references in Abraham that are used repeatedly in talking about the plan of salvation but after reading it over today I can understand why as a total work it is less emphasized.

Jeff I just watched a 1947 Movie called “Gentleman’s Agreement” is there a place I can ask you a few questions please.

Q&A
jspector106 at msn.com

#12 JS:

“It would be very easy, using logic to say. “There is no physical evidence of the existence of Moses, therefore, I cannot conclude that he ever existed.” A person could be very justified in their thinking.”

Lowell Bennion quoted someone as saying that faith was “reason grown courageous.” A person of faith would not be justified in that thinking, if the existence of Moses was a critical article of the faith tradition he was following. Faith can reach out into the sphere were reason is inadequate, either because it’s not amenable to the questions being considered (the existence and nature of God, etc.), or because the facts are irretrievably lost in the mists of history. (In the latter case, we have to remain open to the possible need to change our thinking if new facts are discovered, and crowd out the “God of the gaps.”)

But that is fundamentally different from a situation where the facts are known, with a degree of certainty that would be sufficient for us in other contexts. To analogize, if we would be willing, in serving on a jury, to hang a man based on DnA evidence, it would not be proper for us to ignore such evidence in other contexts where its reliability may be equally well established. Faith can go beyond reason — it should never contradict it.

“’The Book of Abraham was certainly presented — evidently with Joseph’s approval, if not actually at his specific direction — as a literal translation of the Chandler papyri. As best as we can tell, it is not.’”

Yes, I think it was presented that way. The only out is that the actual papyrus from where this “translation” came is not among the Papyri that was rediscovered and given to the Church.”

I can’t find in myself the freedom to credit this theory. The big problem is that the first chapter of the Book of Abraham expressly incorporates by reference the Lion Couch illustration, which is part of the papyrus (which dates much later than Abraham’s time) in the Church’s possession. Occam’s Razor isn’t always required in matters of faith, but at some point, the search for “outs” becomes so frantic and so convoluted as to call into question whether the “out”-seeker is truly committed to seeking truth, rather than the answer he wants.

I suppose it is possible that an ancient Egyptian funeral director might, for reasons unknown, have inserted a fifteen-hundred-year-old papyrus written by Abraham in the middle of his client’s Breathing Permit, and that Abraham might have foreseen this and analogized his near escape from being sacrificed to a depiction of an Egyptian’s preparation for burial which he knew would be “at the beginning of this record.” It’s also theoretically possible that a Satanic cult killed Scott Peterson’s wife, but only an idiotic defense lawyer completely devoid of scruple would find that theory credible. “Theoretically possible” is a completely useless category.

Thomas, 24,

Thanks for the Lowell Bennion quote, I agree with it completely.

“I can’t find in myself the freedom to credit this theory”

In this case, there is sufficient evidence to make it more than theoretically possible. Given the condition of the Papyri which forms the Book of Breathings, it could not have been the source of the Book of Abraham simply because the description of those papyrus were that they were in prefect condition, beautifully written.

While I do not want to debate the whole Book of Abraham thing again, I think my possible explanation does not compare with a Scott Peterson wild story.