Book of Abraham vs. Book of Mormon

[consiglieri]

The LDS church has admitted in its official essay the Book of Abraham translation has nothing to do with what is on the papyri.

For purposes of this exercise, I want to admit everything the church says about the translation process of the Book of Mormon--i.e., that Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon from the plates that were in his possession.

But even granting that, when we compare the situation of the Book of Abraham with the Book of Mormon . . .

. . . would it not be the most reasonable thing to believe that the Book of Mormon has as much to do with what was on the plates as the Book of Abraham has with what was on the papyri?

And if this is the most reasonable conclusion, where does that leave us?

[Corsair]

. . . would it not be the most reasonable thing to believe that the Book of Mormon has as much to do with what was on the plates as the Book of Abraham has with what was on the papyri?

Yes, that is a reasonable way to approach the Book of Mormon from a nuanced perspective. It might annoy some orthodox believers (i.e., nearly all of my family extended family). I recognize that the temple recommend interview questions do not ask the candidate if they believe that the Book of Mormon is historical and true.

However, the LDS church is founded upon several important historical events that establish doctrinal legitimacy and Joseph Smith's prophetic mantle. I'm not sure how the One True Church retains this exclusive distinction if it concedes too much more ground in this theological question. The angel named Moroni is supposed to have visited Joseph Smith five times during the night in preparation for acquiring the gold plates that the mortal version of Moroni hid in a hill 1400 years before.

Can the Book of Mormon be non-historical or partly historical and still retain some kind of rhetorical power? Can millions of testimonies of the truth of the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion survive becoming non-historical? How do conservative, tithe paying members trust prophets, seers, and revelators following a cataclysmic shift after that? If Joseph Smith had only claimed that the Book of Mormon contained the great, restored truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ within a fictional narrative, then maybe we could take that approach. How do we interpret the visit of Moroni in that case? Can we then start to doubt other aspects of Joseph's revelation? Certainly that idea was a significant catalyst for many of us that ended up on this board.

J. R. R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" is inspiring fiction. Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" is inspiring fiction. The Book of Mormon is inspiring fiction to most of Community of Christ. I am skeptical that this kind of shift in the LDS church is going to work. Show me how I could be wrong.

[el-asherah]

. . . would it not be the most reasonable thing to believe that the Book of Mormon has as much to do with what was on the plates as the Book of Abraham has with what was on the papyri?

In a sense some apologists are almost already there with the "more loose" translation theory, while TBMs hold fast to the "tight" translation theory.

For the BoA, apologist claim the papyri was a "catalyst" for Joseph to receive divine inspiration - what was physically on the papyri does not matter. To account for BoA anachronisms, the apologist stance is that Joseph filtered and projected the inspired ideas through his 19th century cultural and environmental lens. The words written are what Joseph through inspiration thought Abraham should of said.

For the BoM "more progressive loose" translation theories, it is almost exactly the same, the plates were a "catalyst" for Joseph to receive divine inspiration - what is physically on the plates does not matter. In fact the plates did not even have to be in the room to be translated, and many times were hidden somewhere else (such as in the woods). To account for Book of Mormon anachronisms (such as 19th century ideas), the apologist stance is that Joseph filtered and projected the inspired ideas through his 19th century cultural and environmental lens. The words written are what Joseph through inspiration thought Nephi/Mormon/Moroni and Jesus/God should of said.

D&C 9:8-10 provides the model on how to receive revelation and how to do the BoM translation - study it out in your mind - what you think it should say, and if you receive confirmation ("yes/no" answer e.g. burning in the bosom) then what you thought it should say is correct. In this model, the plates do not even have to be there, you only have to think about what the plates may have said, come up with something and if you get a yes/no confirmation (feel good about it), you've got a translation. A perfect example of confirmation bias at the extreme.

It appears to me that Oliver wanted some kind of "yes/no" physical confirmation that they were on the right track, e.g. divining rod/seer stone/Urim and Thummim. As a side note the Urim and Thummim is like a Magic 8 ball or rolling dice, capable of only answering "yes/no" questions see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim. Does anyone know how a seer stone is actually really suppose to work? not the LDS version, but the folk magic version in the 1800s? Were you to look into it and visually see things, or were you to ask questions of it and do something like spin it with the resulting orientation giving you a binary yes/no answer?

This model even though canonized in the D&C is not accepted by TBMs - for the BoM, Joseph look into the Urim and Thummim and read off each word exactly as translated by God, because that is one of the many stories Joseph and Oliver told (which contradicts D&C 9:8-10).

If most TBMs took the time to understand the "more loose" answer they would classify the apologists as heretics.

[MalcolmVillager]

The LDS church has admitted in its official essay the Book of Abraham translation has nothing to do with what is on the papyri.

For purposes of this exercise, I want to admit everything the church says about the translation process of the Book of Mormon--i.e., that Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon from the plates that were in his possession.

But even granting that, when we compare the situation of the Book of Abraham with the Book of Mormon . . .

. . . would it not be the most reasonable thing to believe that the Book of Mormon has as much to do with what was on the plates as the Book of Abraham has with what was on the papyri?

And if this is the most reasonable conclusion, where does that leave us?

I love how you think Consiglieri. I hope we can be "friends" soon!

[moksha]

I am skeptical that this kind of shift in the LDS church is going to work. Show me how I could be wrong.

Disneyland exists even though its foundational character, Steamboat Willie, has long been abandoned and most today concede that The Adventures of Mickey Mouse was non-historical. Disneyland continues to bring joy to those who visit and it earns a steady profit through this enterprise.

[redjay]

It leaves us with a religion that moves it's goal posts, is ignorant or deceptive with regard to it's foundation; and lacks credibility due to its inconsistency.

[wtfluff]

. . . would it not be the most reasonable thing to believe that the Book of Mormon has as much to do with what was on the plates as the Book of Abraham has with what was on the papyri?

And if this is the most reasonable conclusion, where does that leave us?

Well, we at least have the papyri, and know for a fact that the "translation" of the papyri is completely bunk.

There is no real physical evidence that the plates ever existed, so when it comes to the Book of Mormon, both the source material, and everything in the book are completely made up.

[Hagoth]

They could show us how all of this works by dusting off that rock and translating the Book of Joseph papyrus.

I'm trying to imagine the primary song that will teach the loose translation rock-in-hat and divining rod version.

[Corsair]

Disneyland exists even though its foundational character, Steamboat Willie, has long been abandoned and most today concede that The Adventures of Mickey Mouse was non-historical. Disneyland continues to bring joy to those who visit and it earns a steady profit through this enterprise.

I have to grant that the love of Disneyland is it's own religious cult. This past Sunday I attended the wedding of a cousin who had a Disney themed ceremony that Walt would appreciate. I have not seen a Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham themed wedding yet.

[moksha]

I have not seen a Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham themed wedding yet.

I was trying to conjure what this might look like by humming the tune to the Bangles song, "Wed like a Reformed Egyptian". "Ay oh whey oh, ay oh whey oh!"

[shadow]

I have not seen a Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham themed wedding yet.

I was trying to conjure what this might look like by humming the tune to the Bangles song, "Wed like a Reformed Egyptian". "Ay oh whey oh, ay oh whey oh!"

[threadjack]

The wedding might look something like this video.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/06/g ... d-indians/

[/threadjack]

[nibbler]

Well, we at least have the papyri, and know for a fact that the "translation" of the papyri is completely bunk.

There is no real physical evidence that the plates ever existed, so when it comes to the Book of Mormon, both the source material, and everything in the book are completely made up.

In your scenario the catalyst to receive god's word was a desire to make a buck on selling some books.

Disneyland exists even though its foundational character, Steamboat Willie, has long been abandoned and most today concede that The Adventures of Mickey Mouse was non-historical. Disneyland continues to bring joy to those who visit and it earns a steady profit through this enterprise.

Disneyland is in the business of selling joy. The church is in the business of putting people to work for it. No one buys a ticket to Disneyland with the expectation that they'll be scrubbing toilets.

How long would Disney last if they re-aired Steamboat Willie every Sunday for 180 years and told people that were no longer entertained by it that they were the ones with the problem?

I have not seen a Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham themed wedding yet.

I haven't either but in my mind's eye I imagine two starry eyed youth gazing into each others eyes under a basketball hoop.

Yikes. Grumpy cat is grumpy this morning. I'll be quiet now.