Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

[Shulem]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but where again did Joseph, first person, say that the Book of Abraham was a translation given to him through the HG? Shulem pasted some quotes that could be indirectly interpreted to be saying that, but not necessarily. Far from it. Saying that the Holy Ghost is here…in one place…so it’s gotta be there…in another…is a reach. Not to say that Joseph may not have considered his interpretive ventures (including his work with the Bible) and other projects to have been inspired on some level.

My understanding is that Smith received all those things pertaining the Book of Abraham through revelation and a revelation was also given to the Twelve to publish it in the Times and Season. There are many citations to this effect and eyewitnesses who claim Smith was doing just that, revelation. Where was there ever a revelation without the manifestation of the Holy Ghost to give that revelation? Is not revelation through the Spirit? Isn’t that what the scriptures and the prophets teach, more especially Joseph Smith? The prophet is on record for stating that his translations and the work of the Book of Abraham was given by revelation even as the Book of Mormon and the saints received it as such. All of it came through revelation and what revelation comes from God without the Holy Ghost to give it? Revelation must come through the Holy Ghost or does not come at all.

I’m glad you’re asking questions and pushing back a little, MG. That’s all fine.

I have more to say on this later.

[MG 2.0]

Oh crimany! Thanks for the heads up Xenophon, I am not paying attention very well. Well, interestingly two independent posts and thinkers have the same problem, which is extremely interesting... thanks again man I shall check it out.

Just for clarity I was just pointing out my comment for the same thing you suggest in your post here, not needing credit or anything .

It isn't that much of a stretch to suggest this line of thinking throws into question a fair bit of the divine mandate that believers grant the leadership of the church. So little a stretch that we both thought of it right away.

In a sense, yes it does. We have been taught that we are not to depend wholeheartedly on what what our leaders say. That we need to study it out in our own minds and use our own intuitions and/or spiritual guidance. To me, this topic is a prime example of doing this. When things don’t add up we can either chose to blindly believe anyway, put something on a shelf, or believe in a nuanced fashion. Oh, or not believe at all. I am not persuaded that not believing at all is necessarily the only reasonable choice. Especially when there is some question as to why believing the traditional story of a historical event/narrative is unappealing and yet one sees other pieces of the puzzle/picture as having some appeal.

My participation on this thread is to demonstrate that we, as independent beings, are not in any way, shape, or form obligated to accept something that may not be true in the literalistic sense even though others may do so. Yes, the Book of Abraham was canonized. No, I don’t see that going away. No, I don’t see that as a dealbreaker. The million dollar question at the end of the day, of course, is why God let it happen. That is, if the Book of Abraham was more or less a midrashic composition why would he let things go the way they did. One possibility would be that the midrashic composition contained enough doctrinal inspiration that taught truth that it was allowed to stand. Pearls encapsulated within the messiness of the internals of an oyster, by analogy.

I think when looking at the overall life and teachings of Joseph Smith there is reason to believe that he was inspired to do and say many of the things he did. Others, maybe not so much. Personally I see evidences in the restoration that God is behind it, so that forces me to look at the apparent anomalies and look for reasonable explanations. This is one of those cases where I have played around with the traditional understandings that we all grew up with.

In all of MG's posting here I only see him working to attempt to establish thst canonization was wrong, not deal with any of the fall out that I believe would come were it to be removed from the standard works or at the very least were the canonization left in tact but acknowledged as wrong.

Obviously there would be fallout. But there has also been fallout as a result of the acceptance of the traditional narrative. Number wise, probably less of a fallout. The world is not binary in the way that things operate. Agency is valued more than all else in the eyes of God, in my opinion. We have to look at a wholistic view when it comes to the Book of Abraham. Starting from the obtaining of the scrolls, what Joseph was thinking and entertaining in his mind, what other’s thoughts were, the product and it’s meaning, and what to do with it after it had been serialized. John Taylor obviously saw things differently than Brigham Young and possibly Joseph Smith.

These kinds of apologetics always leave me thinking some members might be much happier in a church that looks more like the church or Joseph Smith (not that they worship him per se, but just that one adhere to only his teachings). That is fine and all but I think one has to acknowledge how out of sync that is with the current church and its community.

Believe me, I don’t worship Joseph Smith. What I do, however, is look at whether or not his place in history amounts to anything in the eternal scheme of things, assuming that there is an eternal scheme of things with purpose beyond the here and now. If that presupposition is a non starter for you, then we we will, by default, have divergent views in this matter and others.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but where again did Joseph, first person, say that the Book of Abraham was a translation given to him through the HG?

MG,

Warren Parrish was called and set apart as the prophet’s scribe in November 1835 and was instrumental in drafting portions of the Egyptian Papers. Parrish assisted the prophet and other scribes in writing the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language as well as the Book of Abraham Translation Manuscripts. The prophet’s personal scribe testified to the world via the newspaper that Smith’s Egyptian translations were “direct inspiration from heaven” which is the same as REVELATION.

To the Editor of the Painesville Republican:

. . . I have been Smith's private Secretary, called to fill this high and responsible station by revelation which I wrote myself as it dropped from the lips of the Prophet, and although contrary to my natural inclinations, I submitted to it, fearing to disobey or treat lightly the commands of the Almighty. I have kept his journal, and like Aaron the ancient scribe, have had the honor of writing the History of the Prophets. . . I have sat by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from heaven.

QUESTION:

Do you believe the testimony of Warren Parrish accurately represents his scribal relationship to the prophet?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Uncertain

[Shulem]

MG,

It’s fair to say that the scriptures teach that out of the mouth of witnesses shall every word be established. Here is another witness of the prophet’s declaration of having translated the Book of Abraham by revelation and was made public.

Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. ‘That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,’ said the prophet, ‘This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the Creation, from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis.’ The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking on a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion, ‘Why, that’s as plain as pikestaff,’ was the rejoinder. ‘Before the Fall snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment of their agency in the ruin of man.’ We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct revelation.


References:
The Saga of the Book of Abraham; Jay M. Todd, p. 256
The Story of the Pearl of Great Price; James R. Clark, p. 112,113

[Xenophon]

Hey MG, thanks so much for your reply. I'll try to keep it brief as I'm honestly more interested in the back and forth you and Shulem are having than anything I have to say.

First I feel I have to say. I absolutely am not trying to convince you of the "wrongness" of your position on the Book of Abraham. I have no doubt you've thought long and hard on it to have arrived where you are at with much deliberation and personal prayer. I only mean to highlight what I suspect will prevent nearly every member I'm aware of from accepting your position.

I don't expect we'll agree on this but for me, continued adherence to the teachings of the LDS church is first and foremost a question of the value proposition. Those that still find value in their engagement (for whatever reason that may be, including belief that it is the truest church of God ) can, will, and frankly should find ways that allow them to stay engaged. If this interpretation helps you with that I find nothing to fault there. I just find this particular brand of Mormonism very foreign, thus my fascination.

Believe me, I don’t worship Joseph Smith.

My apologies if that is what I conveyed, I don't believe that about you at all. I only meant to suggest that the "church" I see you laying the framework for is one that is setup to easily reject everything but the direct words of Joseph Smith and one's own personal revelation. I don't even mean to suggest that you intend that, only that I see it as an inevitable by-product of your train of thought.

I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us up here. I know how uncomfortable it can be to delve in to this topics at time, particular in a place that isn't always hospitable to the opinion of believers.

[MG 2.0]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but where again did Joseph, first person, say that the Book of Abraham was a translation given to him through the HG?

MG,

Warren Parrish was called and set apart as the prophet’s scribe in November 1835 and was instrumental in drafting portions of the Egyptian Papers. Parrish assisted the prophet and other scribes in writing the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language as well as the Book of Abraham Translation Manuscripts. The prophet’s personal scribe testified to the world via the newspaper that Smith’s Egyptian translations were “direct inspiration from heaven” which is the same as REVELATION.

To the Editor of the Painesville Republican:

. . . I have been Smith's private Secretary, called to fill this high and responsible station by revelation which I wrote myself as it dropped from the lips of the Prophet, and although contrary to my natural inclinations, I submitted to it, fearing to disobey or treat lightly the commands of the Almighty. I have kept his journal, and like Aaron the ancient scribe, have had the honor of writing the History of the Prophets. . . I have sat by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from heaven.

QUESTION:

Do you believe the testimony of Warren Parrish accurately represents his scribal relationship to the prophet?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Uncertain

Warren Parrish was a much an enemy of the church and the prophet as they came in early church history. Anything he said or did after the failure of the KSSABC is suspect, in my opinion. He was an avowed enemy early on. The interesting thing is, he wrote this letter at the same time that he had already been found embezzling funds and had become disenchanted with Joseph.

That should be taken into account when reading anything he had to say or witness to. It is doubtful we are getting an accurate account from him in some respects.

Back to square one.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

John Taylor obviously saw things differently than Brigham Young and possibly Joseph Smith.

The Church is run and based on succession. The current and living prophet has charge over the affairs of the Church and all the congregation will say, “Amen”.

At the end of the day the living prophet has the final say.

[Shulem]

Warren Parrish was a much an enemy of the church and the prophet as they came in early church history. Anything he said or did after the failure of the KSSABC is suspect, in my opinion. He was an avowed enemy early on. The interesting thing is, he wrote this letter at the same time that he had already been found embezzling funds and had become disenchanted with Joseph.

That should be taken into account when reading anything he had to say or witness to. It is doubtful we are getting an accurate account from him in some respects.

Back to square one.

The fact remains, Warren Parrish was an ordained scribe, set apart by revelation to assist the prophet in translating ancient records. It is easy for me to believe Warren’s testimony that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Egyptian hieroglyphs by direct inspiration. Taking his testimony along with all the others goes a long way. I believe Warren. He said the prophet claimed to translate by revelation and I believe him! I believe he was telling the truth and his testimony agrees with that of many others.

Now, I’m not asking you to believe Warren Parrish. But, I do ask that you take into consideration his testimonial and that of others. So, when you think about it, MG, that “square one” is really big and I will help you navigate it. That’s what we are here for, right?

[Shulem]

I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us up here. I know how uncomfortable it can be to delve in to this topics at time, particular in a place that isn't always hospitable to the opinion of believers.

I echo those sentiments.

I too want MG to feel comfortable in every way and not feel squeezed or ganged up on. There is no rush and nobody is trying to one-up anyone here. We are friends having a discussion and yet we know there are differences between us and yet we carry on in a manner deserving of the Celestial Forum.

Everyone up here is friends!

I feel good about this thread.

[Xenophon]

I echo those sentiments.

I too want MG to feel comfortable in every way and not feel squeezed or ganged up on. There is no rush and nobody is trying to one-up anyone here. We are friends having a discussion and yet we know there are differences between us and yet we carry on in a manner deserving of the Celestial Forum.

Everyone up here is friends!

I feel good about this thread.

I couldn't agree more, Shulem. It is part of why I've tried not to use the "quote" feature in my replies to MG. I'm not interested in any sort of dogpile scenario (as I know neither you or Philo are either) and I don't wish to flood his notifications. We've got nothing but time up here to ponder and discuss.