Will back to using his Nomad alt at MAD

[_Drifting]

Buffalo, I know it's going back a bit, but did you say something about Will posting as Nomad?

[_Fence Sitter]

To me, thinking like that is what the Community of Christ church now does. They're not even Mormon at all anymore, if you ask me. They're just like any other Protestant church.

I believe that was their intent when they changed their name. When their theologically trained leadership came to the conclusion that the 2nd coming wasn't just around the corner, that Zion was not going to be redeemed in Missouri anytime soon, that Joseph Smith Jr really was involved in polygamy, that the Book of Mormon is full of anachronisms, that they no longer had a blood descendent of Joseph Smith leading the RLDS, that Jospeh Smith Jr introduced the temple ceremony, baptisms for the dead, and sealings to create family dynasties here on earth that would rule in heaven, that most of what the Brighamite Mormons said Joseph Smith Jr had done was really true, and that nothing on the extant papyri resembled what was written in the Book of Abraham, they decided to become like any other Protestant Church.

[_Runtu]

I'm just thinking of people in my ward, and I'm almost certain there is no one in my ward who thinks that way. I think it would be hard to not give hints from time to time.

One thing I've learned in life is that you almost never know what's going on in people's lives. When I was elders quorum president and executive secretary, I was quite shocked at some of the problems lurking under the surface of some otherwise stalwart families.

So, if people aren't going to open up about their problems, I can't imagine they would out themselves as unorthodox believers. What's the upside to that? None that I can see.

"Right and true"? You mean to you. You people act like it's some foregone conclusion that your viewpoint is the correct one. You don't just have doubts. It's like you have a "testimony" that your viewpoint is the "only true viewpoint on the earth".

I said nothing of the sort. I said that they went with "what they thought was right and true." What someone else thinks is right and true may not be for me. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think it's some foregone conclusion that my viewpoint is the correct one. I read the words I wrote, and I don't see that at all. For the record, I think people make their way through life the best way they can, and I don't condemn others for making different choices from mine.

I don't agree with that. I don't think it's that hard to defend the orthodox position. I agree that we don't know everything and that we have to have faith about many things. But I still don't think it's that hard to defend the orthodox position.

Well, we disagree then. No big deal.

[_stemelbow]

I don't understand. Didn't Joseph Smith say he translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus? Hasn't the church always taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus? Why are these people "fed up" with those who defend what Joseph Smith said and what the church has always taught?

I don't think I can say much more for them (Bokovoy and Schryver). The Book of Abraham poses some pretty complex issues. What we know about the production is, in my estimation, very little. What we know of the Egyptian papyrus is, at least in most people's minds, it can't possibly be a direct source for the Book of Abraham. that is the egyptian material on the papyrus does not translate into the english words that make up the Book of Abraham. The argument then centers on other things and possibilities.

The apologist approach is often to say, essentially, well the extant papyrus is only a portion of what Joseph Smith had so there is no reason to think what we do have is what was used to translate the Book of Abraham. There are critics who feel they have refuted, as far as I can tell, the apologists stance. They say, it seems, there is no way the source for the Book of Abraham could have fit on the missing portion of papyrus.

The poster Californiakid who posts here seems to be one of the leading, if not the leading, proponents of that critical position. Will Schryver thinks Californiakid and his partner have made some errors in their analysis and has proposed some other ideas about how the missing portion is large enough. Bokovoy sometime last year, I believe, said he disagreed with Schryver's analysis, which has largely yet to be published, and with his disagreement took issue with the behavior of Schryver on boards like this, which I admit was in very poor taste. I don't think Bokovoy stated the reasons of why he disagreed with Schryver. I keep getting interested in this topic then losing interest, as both sides are full of vitriol and its tough to wade through it.

Since there are so many unanswered questions about how the translation I doubt we’ll ever get to the bottom of all of this. There will always be new ideas presented about what exactly took place. Joseph Smith didn’t say much about the translation. But he did suggest that the papyrus contained writings of Abraham. Was Joseph able to decipher what the Egyptian said? Or did the “translation” come to him in some sort of vision state? If the latter then perhaps the papyrus served as a medium in which Joseph Smith was revealed things about Abraham. On that note, some LDS, perhaps like Bokovoy, tend to favor the notion that the papyrus did not contain writings of Abraham, but served as a medium. I don’t know that that holds a lot of water, but I don’t know if Schryver’s ideas do either. And I don’t know that California’s argument is all the helpful or not.

[_Buffalo]

I can't wrap my brain around the idea that people can still be Mormon but not believe there were Nephites and gold plates and that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from those gold plates that he was guided to by the angel Moroni and that he also translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus that they got with those mummies.

To me, thinking like that is what the Community of Christ church now does. They're not even Mormon at all anymore, if you ask me. They're just like any other Protestant church.

I don't think there are many current LDS who have these kinds of ideas. At least I don't know any. I never even heard of it until just a little while ago. Do they have their own website, kind of like this place is for ex-Mormons?

Most people with these sorts of opinions keep quiet about it in church.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo, I know it's going back a bit, but did you say something about Will posting as Nomad?

Ah, nevermind. Apparently that was an off-topic post. :o

[_Drifting]

I don't understand. Didn't Joseph Smith say he translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus? Hasn't the church always taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus? Why are these people "fed up" with those who defend what Joseph Smith said and what the church has always taught?

Yes, Joseph Smith stated that it was...

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

The reason apologists are fed up is because:
1. The papyrus isn't old enough to have been written on by Abraham himself.
2. Egyptologists can now accurately decipher the characters on the papyrus etc and unfortunately Joseph translated it all incorrectly.
3. The Church recovered the actual papyrus in the 60's so the apologists best defence, that of "we don't have the papyrus", was rendered nonsense.

They are fed up of defending the indefensible.

[_Drifting]

"Right and true"? You mean to you. You people act like it's some foregone conclusion that your viewpoint is the correct one. You don't just have doubts. It's like you have a "testimony" that your viewpoint is the "only true viewpoint on the earth".

Do you have a testimony that the Church is true?
Do you agree that it is your duty to actively support the mission of the Church?

[_Ceeboo]

I don't think I can say much more for them (Bokovoy and Schryver). The Book of Abraham poses some pretty complex issues. What we know about the production is, in my estimation, very little. What we know of the Egyptian papyrus is, at least in most people's minds, it can't possibly be a direct source for the Book of Abraham. that is the egyptian material on the papyrus does not translate into the english words that make up the Book of Abraham. The argument then centers on other things and possibilities.

The apologist approach is often to say, essentially, well the extant papyrus is only a portion of what Joseph Smith had so there is no reason to think what we do have is what was used to translate the Book of Abraham. There are critics who feel they have refuted, as far as I can tell, the apologists stance. They say, it seems, there is no way the source for the Book of Abraham could have fit on the missing portion of papyrus.

The poster Californiakid who posts here seems to be one of the leading, if not the leading, proponents of that critical position. Will Schryver thinks Californiakid and his partner have made some errors in their analysis and has proposed some other ideas about how the missing portion is large enough. Bokovoy sometime last year, I believe, said he disagreed with Schryver's analysis, which has largely yet to be published, and with his disagreement took issue with the behavior of Schryver on boards like this, which I admit was in very poor taste. I don't think Bokovoy stated the reasons of why he disagreed with Schryver. I keep getting interested in this topic then losing interest, as both sides are full of vitriol and its tough to wade through it.

Since there are so many unanswered questions about how the translation I doubt we’ll ever get to the bottom of all of this. There will always be new ideas presented about what exactly took place. Joseph Smith didn’t say much about the translation. But he did suggest that the papyrus contained writings of Abraham. Was Joseph able to decipher what the Egyptian said? Or did the “translation” come to him in some sort of vision state? If the latter then perhaps the papyrus served as a medium in which Joseph Smith was revealed things about Abraham. On that note, some LDS, perhaps like Bokovoy, tend to favor the notion that the papyrus did not contain writings of Abraham, but served as a medium. I don’t know that that holds a lot of water, but I don’t know if Schryver’s ideas do either. And I don’t know that California’s argument is all the helpful or not.

Hey Stem,

Although I will not offer an opinion as to your contribution, I do think that the name of Kevin Graham deserves to be (and should have been) mentioned.


In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to find anyone that posseses as much (or more) knowledge sorrounding the Book of Abraham (KEP), as does Kevin.


To be clear, I am not suggesting the names you offer do not belong on the list. I just think Kevin should, without question, be included among them.

Just sayin.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_stemelbow]

Hey Stem,

Although I will not offer an opinion as to your contribution, I do think that the name of Kevin Graham deserves to be (and should have been) mentioned.


In my opinion, you would be hard pressed to find anyone that posseses as much (or more) knowledge sorrounding the Book of Abraham (KEP), as does Kevin.


To be clear, I am not suggesting the names you offer do not belong on the list. I just think Kevin should, without question, be included among them.

Just sayin.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Fine. There are other names left out too. If you feel Kevin should be mentioned then your mention of him in your post will serve that purpose.