Geocentric Astronomy in the Book of Abraham?

[_Runtu]

Very insightful, JV. It has been my view that a number of apologetic positions make similar implicit concessions to a non-revelatory view of Joseph Smith in their bid to protect the opposite position. It is very odd. Joseph Smith is a revelator because he was able to get divine access to ancient texts that were flawed human productions that reflected their times. And yet we have to make sure Joseph Smith does not reflect his time.

My head is spinning.

Well said. Once again, it's just a reminder of the ad hoc nature of apologetics.

[_Blixa]

Thanks runtu (and everyone else that has contributed to the thread so far). In some ways this is the most interesting Book of Abraham thread I've ever read. I'm not as interested in Book of Abraham issues as some, for many reasons. But this thread has brought together a number of good points about both it and its apologetics that are quite interesting.

[_Morley]

Thanks runtu (and everyone else that has contributed to the thread so far). In some ways this is the most interesting Book of Abraham thread I've ever read. I'm not as interested in Book of Abraham issues as some, for many reasons. But this thread has brought together a number of good points about both it and its apologetics that are quite interesting.

I agree.

I hope you stick around, Juggler Vain.

[_Fence Sitter]

It seems like a reasonably solid case; however, there is a serious problem in their argument. The Book of Abraham refers to "orders" of planets, and planets of the same order have the same "reckoning" of time. Those of a higher order move "more slow" until you reach Kolob, which has the longest reckoning of time. On first glance, this does support a geocentric model, as the authors assert.

But the text twice refers to "all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest" (Abr. 3:5, 9). If the earth is at the center of the universe, it is unique, and there can be no other planets occupying that central place in the universe. There cannot be any planets of the same order, unless our earth is not the center that the rest revolves around. Of course, someone who understood that our solar system is not unique would have no problem suggesting that there are other planets in the same order as the earth.

How is time reckoned on an earth that is the center of the universe?

[_Shulem]

It never ceases to amaze me how it's always the school teachers at BYU that supposedly teach the members of the Church about the mysteries of the Book of Abraham and not the prophets, seers, and revelators who are the ones that are ordained to that work. You'd think the prophets would get jealous over the school teachers who are asurping their responsibility. Apparently not, because Mormon prophets are cowards when it comes to the embarrassing things contained in the Book of Abraham. Meanwhile, the school teachers are nothing more than clowns putting on a rediculous show. When it comes to the Book of Abraham it's clear that BYU is a circus and Mormon prophets are ever in hiding.

Paul O

[_sock puppet]

But the text twice refers to "all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest" (Abr. 3:5, 9). If the earth is at the center of the universe, it is unique, and there can be no other planets occupying that central place in the universe. There cannot be any planets of the same order, unless our earth is not the center that the rest revolves around.

Good point. Furthermore, the explanation for figure 5 in Facsimile 2 refers to the "annual revolutions" of the earth. What is the earth supposed to be revolving around if it's at the center of the system?The Abrahamic astronomy is celestial-centric, not geocentric.

That's how I read it. I was just reading the section of Thomas Dick's book that discusses the hierarchy of planets and the throne of God. If one doesn't prefer a supernatural explanation, that book is clearly a source of the ideas in Abraham 3.

So basically, the BoAbr astronomy is simply an incoherent mish-mash that has no internal consistency, and doesn't fit with the world view in Abraham's timeframe, JSJr's timeframe, or now. At best, it was a poor attempt by a 19th Century person to try to imbue that astronomy with geocentricity to give it that 'ancient' feel--but why would an all-knowing god give geocentric views to Abe when that was incorrect. More likely, this astronomy is just the musing of a confused farm boy and making stuff up.

[_just me]

What gets my head spinning is when you begin to carry these ideas through. For example, God lives near Kolob (or whatever) and a day for him is 1000 years for us. Remembering that he is some type of celestial humanoid I wonder how he could stand a day (light) that lasted 500 years. Or a night/dark that lasted 500 years. Nothing would grow...nothing would be able to live or survive those conditions. HA! There would be no seasons.

Why do I even think about this? I dunno, but it is hilarious.

Why does it yammer on about the reckoning of time on the moon, etc. when there are no people to do the reckoning?

I need to ask a TBM what they think about all these verses...

[_Drifting]

I was just perusing "And I Saw the Stars -- The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy" by Daniel C. Peterson, John Gee, and William J. Hamblin

I've just been searching through the "Who's Who?" of astronomy and cannot seem to find these three gentlemen mentioned...

[_Shulem]

I've just been searching through the "Who's Who?" of astronomy and cannot seem to find these three gentlemen mentioned...

Maybe that's because neither of those bozos are authorities on the subject. They are BYU circus clowns sticking their necks out for and behalf of the prophets of Mormonism. Hey, when the BYU school teachers have spoken the thinking has been done. Members of the church actually flock before these clowns as if they really know what they are talking about.

Hey, John Gee: What's the name of the king written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3? Can you read Egyptian? Do you believe Joseph Smith's revelation? Which is it?

Hey, Dan Peterson: Why is a god of Egypt called a slave by your founding prophet? Do you believe Joseph Smith was filled with the Holy Ghost when he pawned that off on the church?



Paul

[_Equality]

I'm not sure why they would find it strategically useful to defend a geocentric interpretation. Sure, that interpretation would support the idea of the Book of Abraham as an ancient document, rather than, as their opening paragraph states, a "purely a nineteenth-century document" reflecting "early nineteenth-century astronomical speculations," which is obviously the conclusion they would try hardest to avoid, to refute Joseph Smith's reputation as a charlatan. But by tagging it as a geocentric text, they essentially negate its revelatory value, because now it only reflects what everybody else thought about the universe in those ancient times. If God sat down with Abraham to teach him about the universe, why would he feed Abraham cutting-edge bronze-age human observations? Abraham was supposed to have received the "Truth" about the universe, or God's involvement in the story seems unnecessary.

Excellent point, JV. It seems the argument is that the Book of Abraham is important not for what it contains but for what it represents--a tangible product of Joseph Smith's revelatory powers. That's actually reminiscent of the way the Book of Mormon was used in the early church. People have noted that no instance of Joseph Smith ever teaching from the Book of Mormon or quoting from it has been found. Church historians have noted that the early missionaries, such as Parley Pratt and Samuel Smith, used the Book of Mormon to convert people not by quoting its passages, but by pointing to it as a tangible witness for the prophetic gifts of Joseph Smith. More important than the content of the messages that Nephi and Jacob supposedly delivered to their ancient audiences was the message that the existence of the book itself conveyed to potential converts: that the heavens had re-opened, God once again spoke to a prophet, and his name was Joseph Smith. Over time (not coincidentally, one could argue), as the heavens once again seemed to withdraw and the LDS prophets ceased to add to the revelatory canon, the Mormon focus shifted to the messages contained within the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham (think of Ezra Taft Benson's talks and the emphasis on reading the scriptures over the last few decades). Peterson, et al. seem to be turning back the clock to the early days when the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were useful emblems of Joseph's prophetic mantle regardless of the credibility of the information contained inside.