Geocentric Astronomy in the Book of Abraham?

[_consiglieri]

I saw a video presentation of this paper some years ago, and later read it when I got the book.

I think the idea that the Book of Abraham represents a geocentric astronomy is interesting, and one with substantial support in the text (though as noted there may be some outliers that need further discussion--too bad Professor Peterson doesn't post here anymore).

A geocentric model (if it is such) would seem to suggest a more ancient view of the cosmos, and could have implications for an original date of production. (I'm trying to be careful not to overstate the case.)

I think we can all agree that the geocentric analysis is far superior to the "insights" put forward by Jack West a few decades back, in which he asserted that the Book of Abraham shows astronomy as it "really is" and that science is still just catching up to it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Juggler Vain]

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...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.

The argument that "the content doesn't matter, as long as it is the result of revelation" would be a real coup for LDS apologists to successfully pull off, but the authors of this piece don't seem to have figured out how to do it yet, since they support their conclusion that "revelation" exists by analyzing the content, word-by-word.

People have noted that no instance of Joseph Smith ever teaching from the Book of Mormon or quoting from it has been found.

I've often wondered why Joseph Smith wasn't a fan of the Book of Mormon. Maybe he saw early on that Jacob 2:23-35 was going to be a problem.

-JV

[_consiglieri]

I've often wondered why Joseph Smith wasn't a fan of the Book of Mormon.

I think anybody who calls the Book of Mormon "the most correct book" is by definition a fan.

But I agree with Terryl Givens that Joseph Smith viewed the Book of Mormon not so much as a source of doctrinal instruction as a sign of his prophetic calling.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Guest]

Nope, our Solar System runs in a cycle, Mars being the next Earth and Jupiter being the next Mars. All Planets moving closer to the Sun until the planets are consumed by the Sun. Proving some aspects of Darwinism. Creation gets tricky, being that only living organisms(plants and animals) are the source for every bacteria, cell or ameba.




This is what Joseph Smith says regarding this subject.

start video @ 2 min 55 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiyVgYHAX44




Brigham Young also said Men live on the Moon, a theory still preached until Joseph F. Smith looked the fool. That idea is still upheld by some break off Mormon sects.

[_Gadianton]

Either way, it makes one wonder why the church would have canonized ancient error or why Joseph would have translated and published it in the first place.

The answer is that neither anticipated that the truth of the matter would be found out in a manner of any consequence. In Joseph Smith's case, I doubt he ever thought more than six months in advance. Would science demolishing his ruse twenty, fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years later affect the number of young women or wives of his associates that he could seduce within the next month?

As for the church, well, does it really matter? They have a 10 billion dollar mall. Do you? I know I don't.

[_ludwigm]

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.

The Lord (whoever he/she/it is) seems to change his mind very frequently.

Think about polygamy. It was valid from 1844 to 1890.
In 1844 the Lord commanded it, in 1890 He commanded not to follow His previous command.

That 46 year is 1 hour 6 minute 14,4 sec, after the manner of the Lord. (I did the math.)

"This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob."

[_Juggler Vain]

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 kingdom-centric, not geocentric.

On a related note, I was just reading the "if...and conditionals" thread, and realized something about the Book of Mormon. Note the bold text in the quote below.

7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.

8 For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.

***

14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;

15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

In light of the efforts of Peterson, et al. to demonstrate that the Book of Abraham's astronomy is geocentric, in order to establish its bona fides as an ancient document, what implications does the above apparently heliocentric passage have in the debate over the origins of the Book of Mormon? Using the reasoning of Peterson, et al., doesn't heliocentric astronomy likely place the Book of Mormon in the (post-Copernicus) 19th century?

It seems like this Book of Mormon issue wouldn't be so notable if these apologists weren't publishing about the importance of the geocentric astronomical model in distinguishing between ancient and modern texts. This is more reason to question their strategy, as it arguably results in a net loss for their cause. Establishing the Book of Abraham as a geocentric, and therefore possibly ancient, text doesn't actually favor the conclusion that the text is divine -- it only (marginally) supports their efforts to protect the reputation of Joseph Smith as a seer. This modest increase in their ability to defend Joseph Smith is quickly eclipsed by the scrutiny their argument draws to the Book of Mormon's non-geocentric text, which impairs not only the Book of Mormon's claims to ancient origins, but also Joseph Smith's reputation as a seer.

To the extent that people pay attention to this apologetic work, Mormonism seems to grow weaker on other fronts.

-JV

[_CaliforniaKid]

A common criticism of the Bible in the post-Copernican era was that Joshua 10:12-3 had said the sun stood still, whereas Copernican astronomy said the sun stood still all the time, and that the apparent motion of the sun was only due to the rotation of the earth. Bible-believers usually rejoined that Joshua was writing from an earthly perspective, and that “the sun stood still” was not to be taken as a scientific statement. In Helaman, Joseph Smith has his ancient prophet preempt the modern critics by offering this apologetic a few thousand years in advance of the controversy, and then explaining the science of it as a side note.

However, Helaman still gets the science wrong.

To understand why it says "the earth goeth back," think about the moon orbiting the earth. We never see the so-called "dark side" of the moon because as it revolves around the earth, it rotates backwards at just the right rate for the same side always to be facing us. This is called synchronous orbit. This is basically the solution Joseph Smith is proposing to the sun-standing-still problem: the earth rotates backwards in a synchronous orbit with the sun. But what Joseph Smith didn't realize is that the earth already rotates backwards. It just rotates backwards at a much faster-than-synchronous rate. In order to achieve the effect he wants, he would only need to greatly slow down the earth's present rotation, not reverse it altogether.

I suppose I don't have to point out that such a dramatic change in the earth's rate of rotation would probably kill everything.

[_Shulem]

But what Joseph Smith didn't realize is that the earth already rotates backwards. It just rotates backwards at a much faster-than-synchronous rate.

And Joseph Smith also unknowingly added the KJV errors of Isaiah to his golden plates. But do the faithful even care about this? Apparently not. And even to this day there still is no king's name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 even though Mormon revelation claims it. The name doesn't exist and the prophets won't talk about it, surely it must shake their faith.

To say nothing for all those made up astronomical names pertaining to the Book of Abraham and the KEP! Joseph Smith's brain was working overtime. And faithful Mormons dismiss it all as if it means nothing. Amazing!

Paul O

[_Juggler Vain]

To understand why it says "the earth goeth back," think about the moon orbiting the earth. We never see the so-called "dark side" of the moon because as it revolves around the earth, it rotates backwards at just the right rate for the same side always to be facing us. This is called synchronous orbit. This is basically the solution Joseph Smith is proposing to the sun-standing-still problem: the earth rotates backwards in a synchronous orbit with the sun. But what Joseph Smith didn't realize is that the earth already rotates backwards. It just rotates backwards at a much faster-than-synchronous rate. In order to achieve the effect he wants, he would only need to greatly slow down the earth's present rotation, not reverse it altogether.

Thanks for this explanation. That phrase, "the earth goeth back" is pretty awkward, but it makes sense the way you've explained it. I would have preferred that the author use something more sophisticated-sounding, like the concise "the earth turneth back," or the playful "the earth reverseth its rotation in yon ether," or the more typically BoM-sounding "the earth spinneth in opposition to its normal course."

I was thinking, also, that an apologetic explanation for this astronomical concept that still retains a technically geocentric model could be a spherical earth that rotates in space, but does not revolve around sun. That concept, while not generally accepted by ancient astronomers, does seem to predate Copernicus. Of course, the-big picture strategy for defending the Book of Mormon as an actual revelation isn't served by this geocentric interpretation any better than the Book of Abraham is served by it.

-JV