Chap wrote:If that happens, there will probably be a lengthy process of de-emphasis first, so the members don't notice the change too much. Maybe it has already begun?
When was the Book of Abraham last referenced extensively in a speech in General Conference?
The Book of Abraham is the primary source for LDS teachings about the premortal life, the "council in heaven," and the purpose of life. I doubt they would de-emphasize the content of the book, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them back away from the book as a translation of the papyrus. Instead, they'll just move to the "catalyst" theory or something like that, which of course, a lot of apologists have already done.
Honestly, though, I've followed that thread, and it's like arguing over the exact dimensions of the deck chairs on the Titanic. I can't see the outcome of the argument changing either way. This WILL embarrass the apologists who have been kicking so hard against the pricks, which is always entertaining.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Chap wrote:If that happens, there will probably be a lengthy process of de-emphasis first, so the members don't notice the change too much. Maybe it has already begun?
When was the Book of Abraham last referenced extensively in a speech in General Conference?
The Book of Abraham is the primary source for LDS teachings about the premortal life, the "council in heaven," and the purpose of life. I doubt they would de-emphasize the content of the book, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them back away from the book as a translation of the papyrus. Instead, they'll just move to the "catalyst" theory or something like that, which of course, a lot of apologists have already done.
If this is true, it kind of makes you wonder why they would have allowed Schryver access to the papyri. Didn't they know beforehand what he was up to? Certainly he had to have described his intentions before they authorized him to measure them. Doesn't that seem to indicate that they were still holding on to a missing scroll possibility? Maybe that was just a desperate last attempt to try that argument, and now that the Schryver ship has been sunk they'll go full bore with the "catalyst" theory?
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Carton wrote:If this is true, it kind of makes you wonder why they would have allowed Schryver access to the papyri. Didn't they know beforehand what he was up to? Certainly he had to have described his intentions before they authorized him to measure them. Doesn't that seem to indicate that they were still holding on to a missing scroll possibility? Maybe that was just a desperate last attempt to try that argument, and now that the Schryver ship has been sunk they'll go full bore with the "catalyst" theory?
Maybe it is because the Church leadership primarily consist of successful businessmen. I am sure they see Schryver as a shortfall investment.
Edited to add. Access to restricted Church material is not based so much on credentials as it is on point of view.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Carton wrote:If this is true, it kind of makes you wonder why they would have allowed Schryver access to the papyri. Didn't they know beforehand what he was up to? Certainly he had to have described his intentions before they authorized him to measure them. Doesn't that seem to indicate that they were still holding on to a missing scroll possibility? Maybe that was just a desperate last attempt to try that argument, and now that the Schryver ship has been sunk they'll go full bore with the "catalyst" theory?
I don't think the church leadership cares much about this issue. It's the content that matters, not the provenance.
Fence Sitter wrote:Maybe it is because the Church leadership primarily consist of successful businessmen. I am sure they see Schryver as a shortfall investment.
Okay, THAT was funny!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.