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

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:57 pm
Associates of Joseph Smith saw the Bible translation work along with the PofGP/Book of Abraham as being inspired…scripture, so to speak. But again, there isn’t any convincing evidence that Joseph himself saw the Book of Abraham as being equal to the Book of Mormon. Or of equal importance. And as I said earlier, Joseph was apparently not interested in publishing it as a companion scripture. There was no rush, no effort, to either canonize or publish these writings as scripture.

That’s all fine and dandy. I hear what you’re saying. BUT, the fact is the successors of Joseph Smith, to include all of the First Presidencies after John Taylor carry the Triple Combination in their hands and there upon the altars of the temples lie the Pearl of Great Price as does the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. The Pearl of Great Price has been lying upon the altars of the holy temple since 1880 to this very day.

Now, to my memory, never at anytime did Joseph Smith mention that he would hang up the verses of scripture upon the walls of the Nauvoo temple except for that of the Book of Abraham! Nothing was ever said about hanging the words or verses of the Bible or the Book of Mormon on the temple walls. The Book of Abraham is the ONLY scripture to have been given that honor.

That says something. Don’t you think?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:57 pm
Even though, yes, others around Joseph may have believed these projects that Joseph was involved with to be authoritative scripture. John Taylor did for sure. But Brigham Young, not so much apparently.

That’s just not so, MG. Search the writings and discourses of Brigham Young and you will find him quoting from the Book of Abraham about spirits, intelligences, and preexistence. Brigham Young also mentioned exclusive Abrahamic terms such as Kolob and testified of those revealed truths.

I can assure you MG, Brigham Young had a solemn testimony of what he believed to be the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham. He quoted from it and taught precepts and doctrine word verbatim that were revealed therein. Now, if you can find something, any citation, where Brigham downplays the importance or value of the Book of Abraham to include the Facsimiles, then please tell me about that. I would be flabbergasted to learn of that!

I do appreciate your sincere responses and find this discussion to be worthy of the Celestial Forum.

:)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:57 pm
Even though, yes, others around Joseph may have believed these projects that Joseph was involved with to be authoritative scripture. John Taylor did for sure. But Brigham Young, not so much apparently.

You seem to suggest that John Taylor believed the Pearl of Great Price more than Brigham Young simply because he was the one to canonize it. But that’s not entirely fair, MG. It wasn’t Brigham Young or John Taylor that ordered the work to be canonized, IT WAS THE LORD! He is at the helm of the Church and it is by his voice the word of God is given to the Church. It could be argued that the Spirit moved John Taylor to canonize the Pearl of Great Price by the will of God and everything is done according to his timeframe.

Right?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:57 pm
And then there was a thirty year delay…

It seems the only delay we really need concern ourselves with is the one concerning the Lord’s second coming. That delay has to be the longest in history, wouldn’t you say?

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:57 pm
By the way, wouldn’t midrashic style writing and/or commentary and scriptural exegesis look and feel a LOT like revelatory translation to those around Joseph?

I don’t recall Smith ever discussing this particular point or terminology. To him it was either scripture or it was not. Those who discussed Smith’s views on the Book of Abraham treated it all rather literally just as they did Abraham’s literal autograph on the papyrus. The saints took the history literally.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:53 pm
MG
But again, there isn’t any convincing evidence that Joseph himself saw the Book of Abraham as being equal to the Book of Mormon.
So? There isn't any evidence that Joseph himself saw the Bible as being equal to the Book of Mormon either. Does that make the Bible just midrash and not scripture at all in his mind? Remembver it took 31/2 - 4 centuries for the Bible to become canonical MG... My goodness you are tenaciously (and incorrectly) hanging on to something that is irrelevant. It's interesting, but I am glad my outlook has the predominant evidence on its side. I'm happy to go with that.
Why the stringent criteria that everything has to all be equal in order to be valid scripture?! There is no evidence Joseph Smith ever thought your way either. I'm amazed you cannot see that.

I think it’s fair to say that Smith considered the Bible to be a kind of bedrock for the Church, foundational scripture of the prophets in the Old World. The Book of Mormon was somewhat of another class written in a different manner having a narrative that comes from a single voice describing the voices of a collective but sounds very much like a single author. The Book of Mormon has been coined the “KEYSTONE” of Mormonism in a philosophical sense, and according to Ezra Taft Benson, the Doctrine of Covenants is the “CAPSTONE” of the scriptures. To this point, the books of Moses & Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price have not been designated with that kind of symbolism. I think the Book of Abraham could be referred to as words from the stars when considering the narrative of its internal origins:

“But the records of the fathers, even the Patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands, therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.”

Thus, the Book of Abraham is written and presented to the world as literal history, as literal as the stars and the movements of the planets in relation to the earth. It’s a story of real people living on a planet surrounded by the cosmos and a heavenly order governed by God. It’s a story of real people living on a planet surrounded by the cosmos and a heavenly order governed by God. With that said, I find the Abrahamic principles of astronomy and the terminology described within the book to be fictitious. The Explanations of Facsimile No. 2, are absolutely out of this world meaning the language and definition of those statements are not historically true.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:45 am
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:07 am


This is true with absolutely everything he ever did... as it has been since the inception of religion... thanks for making the point.
I think that’s to be expected. Perfection is not supplied in the box. Assembly is required.

Regards,
MG

The Book of Abraham consists of 5 chapters and the Explanations of the Facsimiles, *that* is the Book of Abraham and we are able to thoroughly examine the contents from a philosophical point of view as well as a historical point of view. The Book of Abraham is anything but perfect and by taking all the components within this “box” there simply is no way to connect Smith’s Egyptian origin story with that of true predynastic Egyptian history. Smith’s description of how Egypt started is simply not true and does not fit the chronology we have come to know through modern Egyptology that uncovers the true history of ancient Egypt via the records the Egyptians left behind. In short, Smith made it up using what information he knew about Egypt based on the Bible and sources available to him in his day.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

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

Post by Lem »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:16 am
The Book of Abraham consists of 5 chapters and the Explanations of the Facsimiles, *that* is the Book of Abraham and we are able to thoroughly examine the contents from a philosophical point of view as well as a historical point of view. The Book of Abraham is anything but perfect and by taking all the components within this “box” there simply is no way to connect Smith’s Egyptian origin story with that of true predynastic Egyptian history. Smith’s description of how Egypt started is simply not true and does not fit the chronology we have come to know through modern Egyptology that uncovers the true history of ancient Egypt via the records the Egyptians left behind. In short, Smith made it up using what information he knew about Egypt based on the Bible and sources available to him in his day.
That was his approach to creating the Book of Mormon also, right? He was pretty consistent in that strategy.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

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

Post by MG 2.0 »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:19 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:57 pm
Even though, yes, others around Joseph may have believed these projects that Joseph was involved with to be authoritative scripture. John Taylor did for sure. But Brigham Young, not so much apparently.

You seem to suggest that John Taylor believed the Pearl of Great Price more than Brigham Young simply because he was the one to canonize it. But that’s not entirely fair, MG. It wasn’t Brigham Young or John Taylor that ordered the work to be canonized, IT WAS THE LORD! He is at the helm of the Church and it is by his voice the word of God is given to the Church. It could be argued that the Spirit moved John Taylor to canonize the Pearl of Great Price by the will of God and everything is done according to his timeframe.

Right?
Sure, one can argue that everything that happens in a church that claims direct revelation from God is God driven. But I think that is unrealistic to expect. People are people and many times they’re going to do what they want to do, not necessarily what God wants them to do. The problem is that many times religious adherents are like sheep and they’re willing to do whatever an ecclesiastical leader tells them to do. No questions asked. If John Taylor, with his experience having published the serialization of the Book of Abraham and seeing it as literal scripture, brings it to the congregation for canonization…do you really think the folks sitting in that meeting are going to do a thumbs down?

And yes, Brigham Young taught doctrines that find their origin, at least in LDS theology, in the Book of Abraham. But the question is still before us, why didn’t he canonize it? Wasn’t he as inspired as John Taylor? Wouldn’t the time have been just as right for canonization with Brigham at the reins as it was when Pres. Taylor took hold of the same? The idea which you propose that God is necessarily running the show at every twist and turn doesn’t seem to be what we see throughout history, including the restoration. I think canonization of the Book of Abraham and the PofGP could move forward as an ecclesiastical decision. Similar to what we see today as policy decisions.

Terms such as midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis in the days of Joseph Smith would have been seen as inspired and revelatory. Joseph himself would have seen it as such I would think. And I think the Lord works through that means to expound/present doctrine at times. I don’t think there is a one size fits all as you seem to suggest.

A common theme in your posts seems to be that the Lord is, or should be, 100% in charge/responsible for everything that goes on in the church. Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t believe that to be the case. This seems to be an issue that continually crops up time to time from the critics. Anything claiming to have God’s handprints on it needs to be pristinely perfect. I think that is an unreasonable assumption to make in a world of independent free thinking beings.

At the end of the day what I’m proposing is that canonization of the Book of Abraham doesn’t dictate pristinely perfect and authoritative scripture. One way or the other, the weaknesses of men are going to be rather evident. Joseph’s midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis are naturally going to show up. Even so far as misrepresenting the literal interpretation of facsimilies and supplanting them with his own inspired composition with doctrinal content. That’s a difficult pill to swallow for strict 21st century literalists traveling back to the 19th century.

I’ve consolidated some of my comments to the last few posts you’ve made into a short one post response.

I’m enjoying the dialogue. 🙂

Regards,
MG
Last edited by MG 2.0 on Sat Sep 25, 2021 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

Lem wrote:
Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:24 pm
That was his approach to creating the Book of Mormon also, right? He was pretty consistent in that strategy.

Joseph Smith was amazingly consistent with the structure, content, and sequence of the Book of Mormon and followed a strict timeline which I’ve clearly demonstrated in this Celestial thread entitled 600 Years in The Book of Mormon. I detail the chronology of the Book of Mormon and show that Smith was on top of it all and really only made one serious blunder in which I’m able to demonstrate how Smith is caught making up history and in doing so the numbers got the better of him in at least one instance.

Joseph Smith was an incredible thinker and highly organized in his thoughts. He was able to process multiple subjects at once and keep it all organized in his head. The dictation of the Book of Mormon with a stone in a hat was quite the feat. My hat is off to Joseph Smith. He was brilliant! I suspect he had a certain charm and charisma that was enticing to those who met him. I think he knew how to charm the ladies too. Who knows, Lem, maybe he would have charmed you had you lived in Kirtland back in those days. Lol
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Sep 25, 2021 4:20 pm
I’m enjoying the dialogue. 🙂

Regards,
MG

Me too, definitely.

Here is a statement from an Egyptologist in whom I used to have correspondence and I tend to agree with him that it seems the best solution the Church should take today. The reorganized Church (Community of Christ) shares the idea that the Book of Abraham is not a genuine historic account or a literal translation from the papyrus but something in which Smith scripted for whatever purpose God intended.

Non-Mormon Egyptologist Juan Castillos wrote:If one day a statement is made that what Joseph Smith translated were concepts transmitted to him by God, not necessarily the ordinary understanding of such ancient documents, then there could be no further opposition between the readings made by scholars of these objects and that made by the Prophet since it would become strictly a matter of faith which would be outside our field of study.

More later...
Post Reply