What if there was no Book of Abraham?

[_Sethbag]

I honestly don't care who believes in the Book of Abraham or not. I do, however, recognize that just about all the Mormon apologetics on this subject are convoluted, poorly thought out, and sometimes even dishonest. Believe what you want, but you shouldn't have to resort to desperate measures to salvage something like that.

I've mentioned this before, but it was seeing the appalling state of Mormon apologetic arguments in defense of the Book of Abraham was one of the two mopologetic themes (the other being the defensive arguments around Joseph's deceitful practice of rampant adultery behind Emma's back) that finally offended my sense of virtue and honor, and intellectual honesty. I confronted myself about whether I was willing to take the evidence seriously, or just think or say whatever I had to think or say for the church to continue to be true. There are some mopologists whose intellectual consciences are so seared, or whose loyalty to the org overpowers it, that they think this crap up and have the gall to spew it out in print, to back-slapping high-fives from their comrades. But there are plenty of LDS members, like my former self, who would be appalled by this crap, if only they were aware of it.

I think this is one of the reasons the Book of Abraham is so underplayed in recent decades within the church. If they can diminish attention to it, people may be less drawn to looking into it further, and risk being exposed to the evidence against it and the pathetic and disgraceful defenses that are all the church has to offer up.

I say the Book of Abraham was a smoking gun to me, but it would be more true to state that Book of Abraham apologetics were the true smoking gun.

[_Runtu]

I've mentioned this before, but it was seeing the appalling state of Mormon apologetic arguments in defense of the Book of Abraham was one of the two mopologetic themes (the other being the defensive arguments around Joseph's deceitful practice of rampant adultery behind Emma's back) that finally offended my sense of virtue and honor, and intellectual honesty. I confronted myself about whether I was willing to take the evidence seriously, or just think or say whatever I had to think or say for the church to continue to be true. There are some mopologists whose intellectual consciences are so seared, or whose loyalty to the org overpowers it, that they think this crap up and have the gall to spew it out in print, to back-slapping high-fives from their comrades. But there are plenty of LDS members, like my former self, who would be appalled by this crap, if only they were aware of it.

I think this is one of the reasons the Book of Abraham is so underplayed in recent decades within the church. If they can diminish attention to it, people may be less drawn to looking into it further, and risk being exposed to the evidence against it and the pathetic and disgraceful defenses that are all the church has to offer up.

I say the Book of Abraham was a smoking gun to me, but it would be more true to state that Book of Abraham apologetics were the true smoking gun.

I don't think it's coincidental that the most ardent defenders of the Book of Abraham seem to be the people most lacking in character and integrity.

[_moksha]

Wait a minute, this would mean that William Schryver would have his game changer proof regarding some other aspect of the LDS faith and that Paul Osbourne would have spent all that effort defending something else.

[_Chap]

I've mentioned this before, but it was seeing the appalling state of Mormon apologetic arguments in defense of the Book of Abraham was one of the two mopologetic themes (the other being the defensive arguments around Joseph's deceitful practice of rampant adultery behind Emma's back) that finally offended my sense of virtue and honor, and intellectual honesty. I confronted myself about whether I was willing to take the evidence seriously, or just think or say whatever I had to think or say for the church to continue to be true. There are some mopologists whose intellectual consciences are so seared, or whose loyalty to the org overpowers it, that they think this crap up and have the gall to spew it out in print, to back-slapping high-fives from their comrades. But there are plenty of LDS members, like my former self, who would be appalled by this crap, if only they were aware of it.

I think this is one of the reasons the Book of Abraham is so underplayed in recent decades within the church. If they can diminish attention to it, people may be less drawn to looking into it further, and risk being exposed to the evidence against it and the pathetic and disgraceful defenses that are all the church has to offer up.

I say the Book of Abraham was a smoking gun to me, but it would be more true to state that Book of Abraham apologetics were the true smoking gun.

I don't think it's coincidental that the most ardent defenders of the Book of Abraham seem to be the people most lacking in character and integrity.

Yes, but I think we need to consider the possibility that they didn't necessarily start that way. If you are an intelligent and educated person, brought up LDS, and you start looking seriously at Book of Abraham apologetics, you are forced to stretch your mind more and more to find room for the bizarre and improbable concepts that are needed in order to make some wiggle room for belief.

At each step, you remind yourself that the Church is True (isn't it?), and stretch a little further. By the end of it, your sense of what is intellectually honest is so bent out of shape that you cease to feel uncomfortable with stuff that makes any unprepared (whoops, sorry, 'intellectually naïve and literalist') person gape with astonishment.

But in some, the process of distortion and the discomfort it caused seems to leave a legacy of pain and anger, and that has to go somewhere. A good target is of course any critic who reminds the apologist of just how far his intellectual standards have moved away from what he would once have considered normal.

[_Shulem]

Wait a minute, this would mean that William Schryver would have his game changer proof regarding some other aspect of the LDS faith and that Paul Osbourne would have spent all that effort defending something else.

I had always felt that my character and integrity was key to discovering the truth of the Book of Abraham creation. And guess what? I was right! It just took a while to figure it out.

William is right behind me, figuritively speaking.

Paul O

[_Drifting]

Then the Church wouldn't need a Student Manual containing this...

How Did the Church Obtain the Book of Abraham?

On 3 July 1835 a man named Michael Chandler brought four Egyptian mummies and several papyrus scrolls of ancient Egyptian writings to Kirtland, Ohio. The mummies and papyri had been discovered in Egypt several years earlier by Antonio Lebolo. Kirtland was one of many stops in the eastern United States for Chandler’s mummy exhibition. Chandler was offering the mummies and rolls of papyrus for sale and, at the urging of the Prophet Joseph Smith, several members of the Church donated money to purchase them. In a statement dated 5 July 1835, Joseph Smith, declaring the importance of these ancient Egyptian writings, recorded: “I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham. … Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth” (History of the Church, 2:236).

How Did the Prophet Translate the Ancient Writings?

The Prophet Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records. As with all other scriptures, a testimony of the truthfulness of these writings is primarily a matter of faith. The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power.

Why Did the Prophet Joseph Smith Say He Translated the Writings of Abraham When the Manuscripts Do Not Date to Abraham’s Time?

In 1966 eleven fragments of papyri once possessed by the Prophet Joseph Smith were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. They were given to the Church and have been analyzed by scholars who date them between about 100 B.C.and A.D. 100. A common objection to the authenticity of the book of Abraham is that the manuscripts are not old enough to have been written by Abraham, who lived almost two thousand years before Christ. Joseph Smith never claimed that the papyri were autographic (written by Abraham himself), nor that they dated from the time of Abraham. It is common to refer to an author’s works as “his” writings, whether he penned them himself, dictated them to others, or others copied his writings later.

It may be common to refer to an authors works as 'his writings' regardless of wether he penned them himself or not.
But that wasn't what Joseph stated. He said 'written by his own hand on the papyrus'.

The Church would have no need to concoct lies like this if the Book of Abraham didn't exist.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, but I think we need to consider the possibility that they didn't necessarily start that way. If you are an intelligent and educated person, brought up LDS, and you start looking seriously at Book of Abraham apologetics, you are forced to stretch your mind more and more to find room for the bizarre and improbable concepts that are needed in order to make some wiggle room for belief.

At each step, you remind yourself that the Church is True (isn't it?), and stretch a little further. By the end of it, your sense of what is intellectually honest is so bent out of shape that you cease to feel uncomfortable with stuff that makes any unprepared (whoops, sorry, 'intellectually naïve and literalist') person gape with astonishment.

But in some, the process of distortion and the discomfort it caused seems to leave a legacy of pain and anger, and that has to go somewhere. A good target is of course any critic who reminds the apologist of just how far his intellectual standards have moved away from what he would once have considered normal.

If you study the Book of Abraham issues and you're an honest person, you end up leaving the church like Kevin Graham. If you study the Book of Abraham issues and you're a fundamentally dishonest and disturbed person, you come up with contorted theories about secret codes while sexually harassing the apostates.

[_DarkHelmet]

Then the Church wouldn't need a Student Manual containing this...

The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power.

Translation: Since there is absolutely no shred of physical or historical evidence supporting the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham, pray about it and wait for some kind of feeling, any kind of feeling, that you can interpret as the holy ghost telling you it is true. If something positive happens after you pray (anywhere from one second to 10 years later), such as you feel happy, your tummy tingles, or maybe your favorite sports team wins, then it is confirmation that it is true.

[_Chap]

Yes, but I think we need to consider the possibility that they didn't necessarily start that way. If you are an intelligent and educated person, brought up LDS, and you start looking seriously at Book of Abraham apologetics, you are forced to stretch your mind more and more to find room for the bizarre and improbable concepts that are needed in order to make some wiggle room for belief.

At each step, you remind yourself that the Church is True (isn't it?), and stretch a little further. By the end of it, your sense of what is intellectually honest is so bent out of shape that you cease to feel uncomfortable with stuff that makes any unprepared (whoops, sorry, 'intellectually naïve and literalist') person gape with astonishment.

But in some, the process of distortion and the discomfort it caused seems to leave a legacy of pain and anger, and that has to go somewhere. A good target is of course any critic who reminds the apologist of just how far his intellectual standards have moved away from what he would once have considered normal.

If you study the Book of Abraham issues and you're an honest person, you end up leaving the church like Kevin Graham. If you study the Book of Abraham issues and you're a fundamentally dishonest and disturbed person, you come up with contorted theories about secret codes while sexually harassing the apostates.

Well, I was only saying that it was a possibility they they weren't like that to begin with ...

[_Runtu]

Well, I was only saying that it was a possibility they they weren't like that to begin with ...

I think you're right in your analysis. Such folks are not necessarily fundamentally dishonest, but a lot of small and seemingly insignificant choices can lead you very far astray.