A few questions for Shulem

[_Bret Ripley]

For Mormons, it all comes down to faith. It all comes down to putting it on that back burner and waiting for a miracle answer to rescue them.

Sure, and I don't have much problem with LDS folks who acknowledge that. There are 'ethics of belief' issues, to be sure, but I'm only qualified to paddle around in the shallow end of that type of discussion. But those who pretend their faith-based position is on more-or-less equal footing with evidence-based positions (as Gee did) are simply being dishonest, even if unintentionally so.

[_Shulem]

I have a natural curiosity for looking at different points of view and information from as many sources as I can.

And that's a sin?

You know what they say, "Curiosity killed the cat", and a cat's life bites the dust. It appears your faith crisis will materialize and threaten your testimony all by your lonesome self. I just want to push you over the cliff, and watch you fall, so-to speak. I think you're getting close and your shelf is very heavy. May I push you off the cliff, please? It will be my pleasure.

That is why I'm reluctant to always put anything besides the scriptures into the limelight of 'revelation'. And even when it comes to canonized scripture I think that we need to resolve/decipher that which is the direct word of the Lord and that which has been filtered through the eyes/ears/mind of the translator and/or receiver of God's word/message.

It is a juggling act.

Book of Abraham? I go with the "nuanced view".

That's a good question. If the materials that Joseph had access to acted in some way as a modeling, imaging, or connecting mnemonic device(and all that this may entail) used as a catalyst to receive revelation, would that not allow for Joseph's own ideas to slip and/or come through the filter also? Does the revelation have to be perfect and without error? I suppose it's a matter of just how much of Joseph's mind is allowed to come into the Book of Abraham project, along with any error that would be part of that process.

One would hope to think that the 'scripture' would be unadulterated and free from any error. But that appears not to be the case with some of the one to one correlations between the facsimiles and the Book of Abraham text and explanations. To be honest, I don't have an explanation that I am 100% on board with. The Book of Abraham in some ways is an enigma to me. The fact that it has some really cool doctrine/theology and yet has the hand prints of error is a conundrum. I haven't been able to work it all out in my own mind to my own satisfaction.

[_Shulem]

Own it, [personal attack deleted]--or do you realize, whether you include JSjr or not, all the "prophets, seers and revelators" of Mormonism are parading around with hollow, meaningless titles? If you are LDS, then own your scripture. If your not, what the hell are you? Again, own it [personal attack deleted].

On October 10, 1880 in General Conference the church officially canonized the Pearl of Great Price as revelation from God -- scripture on par with the Doctrine & Covenants. The vote of the church was unanimous in favor and the Latter-day Saints whereby took the Book of Abraham, the Facsimiles and Explanations, and the whole kit and caboodle under their arms as if it was the word of God.

I hold in my hand the book of the Doctrine and Covenants and also the book of The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the Conference, to see whether the Conference will accept the books and the contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.

I move that we receive and accept the revelations contained in these books, as revelations from God to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to all the world.

Thus we see the Church officially own the Book of Abraham as revelation and it's "binding" upon the church today. How hardly can I imagine anyone at that time approaching the First Presidency and offering their personal reservations about Book of Abraham translations and explanations. Either they sustain the work with uplifted hand or they do not. Same goes for MG, either he sustains the revelations as a whole or he does not.

[_Shulem]

If not, should we conclude that this statement is authoritative?

On the other hand, is it reasonable to conclude/hypothesize that this statement was made under, as you say, "his authority and proclaims things in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Spirit"?

What is the provenance of this statement?

Friday, January 28, 1842, about a month prior to the first publication of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith received an important revelation regarding the work of publication as the Spirit testified that the revelations were verily true as manifested by the Spirit.

I received the following revelation to the Twelve concerning the Times and Seasons.

Revelation

Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, go and say unto the Twelve, that it is my will to have them take in hand the editorial department of the Times and Seasons, according to that manifestation which shall be given unto them by the power of my Holy Spirit in the midst of their counsel, saith the Lord. Amen.

Hence the authority in the following statement, "The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time" was given by none other than the prophet Joseph Smith under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[_Shulem]

Niiiiiiiice! See it's easy to not be [deleted] in all the threads! Come on Shulem, I too would like to understand this actually....

Well, what have you to say now, my friend?

[_Shulem]

I hope that Paul does answer MG's questions. He is one of the most knowledgable historians on this board. And he knows the Book of Abraham, flaws and all, like the back of his hand. He has done extensive research. I'm really glad he's posting in the Terrestrial Forum again.

Thank you for your kind regards in this matter. I trust you find my argument informative and somewhat convincing. I'm prepared to take MG down into the rabbit holes and mess with his mind. I will break this little troll and feed him to the board as an offering.

[_Shulem]

"... I was left to all kinds of temptations, and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say led me into divers temptations, to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God."

I have to wonder if the gratification of many appetites included sexual sins. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that young Joseph was a horny farm boy looking to get his holy rocks off every chance he can. Horny Holy God (Min) sitting on his throne in Facsimile No. 3 Fig. 7., had an erection and Joseph Smith didn't even know it. He missed a perfect opportunity to nail God on his own throne.

[_honorentheos]

"... I was left to all kinds of temptations, and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say led me into divers temptations, to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God."

I have to wonder if the gratification of many appetites included sexual sins. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that young Joseph was a horny farm boy looking to get his holy rocks off every chance he can. Horny Holy God (Min) sitting on his throne in Facsimile No. 3 Fig. 7., had an erection and Joseph Smith didn't even know it. He missed a perfect opportunity to nail God on his own throne.

They do seem to be the appetites of his adult life, too. One doesn't really have to wonder too hard as to why it was edited.

I do wonder how MG squares his Gee-vasion of history with the information we do have? (MG's Gee-vasion being his, "Well, we can't really know for sure so let's dismiss all that's damning on the assumption that there is a creator God who is guiding the Church, though the leadership can't be sure they are actually acting as conduits of His divine will...but yeah, history is opaque so Mormonism!" justification for not engaging with the historical information.)

[_mentalgymnast]

I do wonder how MG squares his Gee-vasion of history with the information we do have? (MG's Gee-vasion being his, "Well, we can't really know for sure so let's dismiss all that's damning on the assumption that there is a creator God who is guiding the Church, though the leadership can't be sure they are actually acting as conduits of His divine will...but yeah, history is opaque so Mormonism!" justification for not engaging with the historical information.)

That is the default position I have come to after many years of riding the roller coaster of belief and doubt/questioning, yes. And to be honest, after having arrived at this default position, many things that bothered me before faded into the background somewhat. Yes, there is a world of understanding and logic but there is also a world with a certain sense of wonder and ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that creates an environment for faith. And it is through faith...without full understanding...that we become independent decision makers as to whether or not we look to God and live. We knock at the door. It doesn't just open automatically or without effort.

We act rather than being acted upon.

Regards
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
That is the default position I have come to after many years of riding the roller coaster of belief and doubt/questioning, yes. And to be honest, after having arrived at this default position, many things that bothered me before faded into the background somewhat. Yes, there is a world of understanding and logic but there is also a world with a certain sense of wonder and ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that creates an environment for faith. And it is through faith...without full understanding...that we become independent decision makers as to whether or not we look to God and live. We knock at the door. It doesn't just open automatically or without effort.

We act rather than being acted upon.