Isn't the Book of Abraham issue the same as the Kinderhook issue?

[_Sethbag]

Keep in mind that Joseph Smith saw the KP about a year before he died, and that last year was filled with getting more wives, dealing with apostates, being crowned king of the world, and running for President of the United States. I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the KP were not the highest thing on his to-do list, even if they had been genuine. Just look at how long it took for the whole Book of Abraham to be published. Thus, I wouldn't infer anything at all about whether Joseph Smith thought the KP were genuine based on the fact that he didn't publish any attempted translation.

[_asbestosman]

Thus, I wouldn't infer anything at all about whether Joseph Smith thought the KP were genuine based on the fact that he didn't publish any attempted translation.

I suppose that's true. Jersey Girl also made a good point in that regard when she mentioned that the Book of Abraham is something Joseph Smith had more control over than the KP.

[_Polygamy Porter]

I do suffer from doubts from time to time. I just doubt everything else even more. I guess that's why I remain. That and I believe it to be true more than I believe it not to be true.

One towel for a nearly wet exmormon commmming up!

[_Jersey Girl]

Thus, I wouldn't infer anything at all about whether Joseph Smith thought the KP were genuine based on the fact that he didn't publish any attempted translation.

I suppose that's true. Jersey Girl also made a good point in that regard when she mentioned that the Book of Abraham is something Joseph Smith had more control over than the KP.

Let me clarify. Joseph claimed to be able to translate the Gold Plates, the Papyri and the Kinderhook Plates.

He had NO control over the Kinderhook Plates.

Which translation did he fail to produce?

Connect the dots.

[_The Dude]

I do suffer from doubts from time to time. I just doubt everything else even more. I guess that's why I remain. That and I believe it to be true more than I believe it not to be true.

Okay then, I believed it to not be true more than you believe it to be true, at least when I read what you said earlier....

More seriously I don't see the point in crossing over to non-theism. I'd be hurting my family in return for . . . nothing. And it'd be the kind of hurt that'd last much longer than a few hours. I see nothing in non-theism. That's not to say non-theists don't make great contributions. It's to say that I find the package to offer me no value. With theism I get to keep my family in this life for certain and, if I'm right, in the next life too. No need for Pascal's sucker bet. The choice for me is clear. the benefits of theism are far too great.

I decided to leave the Church when I was 24. My wife was three months pregnant and had no idea what I was going through. Every single person I knew personally was a TBM, most of all my parents and my seven younger brothers and sisters (two of whom were serving missions at the time). I knew it would be hard on them. It would destroy some of them. But I was willing to make big sacrifices, if need be, because I did reach a point where I knew it wasn't true.

Many ex-mormons know what this is like.

I also thought this was interesting when you said:

But what of truth? I plug along in my way in what I feel comfortable in and I make fun of what I feel comfortable ridiculing. Why just last week I learned that everyone needs a new temple recommend because the new ones have a bar code for better security. Smartaleck that I am I asked why the gift of discernment wasn't sufficient. I said it for a reaction, but got none. Other things I say to get my TBM family / friends to think outside the box.

How funny. I used to do that too, with good intentions like you. And later I wondered a little bit why they were all surprised (especially my wife) when I took off my garments and announced that I didn't believe it anymore. Didn't they see it coming at all? (For that matter, didn't I see it coming? No, not really....)

I grant you there is a lot of subjective truth in being happy where you are today, and not seeing any reason for a change. It's just that life situations change as easily as the weather, and then suddenly the benefits of adhering to "truth" may outweigh the costs. For me, the weather changed because I was going to be a father, and I felt that my doubts had to be resolved or they would undercut my relationships with my own children.

[_Tarski]

Hey man, when are you going to cross over to the bright side? It only hurts your eyes for a few hours and then its OK, I promise.

I don't know when but I hope never. Besides, from my perspective it's the Dark Side and I wouldn't know what to do without my horns.

More seriously I don't see the point in crossing over to non-theism. I'd be hurting my family in return for . . . nothing. And it'd be the kind of hurt that'd last much longer than a few hours. I see nothing in non-theism. That's not to say non-theists don't make great contributions. It's to say that I find the package to offer me no value. With theism I get to keep my family in this life for certain and, if I'm right, in the next life too. No need for Pascal's sucker bet. The choice for me is clear. the benefits of theism are far too great.

I guess the question is whether the benefits are real or imagined. Some are real I suppose.
Anyway, I guess I wasn't putting the division between theist and non-theist but between skeptic and believer (re: the LDS church) or maybe between TBM and non-TBM.
In anycase, I understand that family stability is a real issue as is having ones own spiritual needs met.
In anycase, I think I detect a closet doubter hiding inside your cranium or at least a closet "questioner".

[_Who Knows]

Memories from my PoGP class by Dr. Michael Rhodes. I'm not holding out hope so much as admitting my great ignorance. Why not educate myself? Because I don't feel it likely to be worthwhile any more than people routinely test themselves for rare diseases without a good reason to suspect the need.

Is it that? Or would it be comparable to someone who thinks they might have aids, but doesn't want to go and get a test for it, because they'd rather live in ignorance, rather than confirm their greatest fear.

(I don't mean to say that you're ignorant - hopefully you get my example).

[_asbestosman]

Memories from my PoGP class by Dr. Michael Rhodes. I'm not holding out hope so much as admitting my great ignorance. Why not educate myself? Because I don't feel it likely to be worthwhile any more than people routinely test themselves for rare diseases without a good reason to suspect the need.

Is it that? Or would it be comparable to someone who thinks they might have aids, but doesn't want to go and get a test for it, because they'd rather live in ignorance, rather than confirm their greatest fear.

(I don't mean to say that you're ignorant - hopefully you get my example).

I suppose it could go both ways. Perhaps if someone could give me a good reason to suspect I might have AIDS (maybe there was a dirty needle last time I donated blood), then maybe I would test for it. I suppose it's hard for one to be objective about onesself especially in life/death situations. You could be correct, but I still think that the negatives of not investigating the Book of Abraham are not sufficient when the probability is taken into account as well as the cost of gaining sufficient understanding. Furthermore I suspect there will be other tests sufficient to demonstrate problems if the church were indeed not true--tests much more convincing to me.

[_Brackite]

I have noticed how the apologists/TBM's defend the kinderhook incident from the viewpoint that Joseph Smith didn't really make a translation. There are no scriptures based on the kinderhook plates, there were no revelations, etc. The reason for doing so, of course, is because the kinderhook plates were a fraud - they weren't real. Let me rephrase that, they were real, but they didn't have 'writings of scripture'.

So lets turn to the Book of Abraham. The 'missing scroll' theory is all but dead. We know Joseph Smith 'translated' the Book of Abraham from papyri that are unrelated to the text of the Book of Abraham.

In other words, in terms of the text of the papyri vs. the text of the Book of Abraham - the papyri were 'frauds' in the same sense that the kinderhook plates were frauds - neither of them contained writings of scripture.

However, I sense that if a piece of scripture were suddenly discovered today, that Joseph Smith had translated from the kinderhook plates, then a lot of TBM's would have a problem with this. But this is not so with the Book of Abraham - even though the basic issues are the same. The Book of Abraham would get a pass, while the kinderhook translation would not - even though they are basically the same issue.

But who knows, maybe not. Maybe TBM's would just turn to some 'catalyst theory' for the kinderhook plates.

Hi There Who Knows,

Yes, I believe that the Book Of Abraham issue is about the same as the Kinderhook issue? It looks like that Joseph Smith started to end up translating the Kinderhook plates with his Spiritual eyes just like he did with the Book of Breathings text into the Book of Abraham. The Following is from Joseph's Private Secretary, William Clayton:

"I have seen 6 brass plates...covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." (William Clayton's Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship - The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, p. 117)

[_Who Knows]

...I still think that the negatives of not investigating the Book of Abraham are not sufficient when the probability is taken into account as well as the cost of gaining sufficient understanding...

I'm curious what you mean by 'probability'. Do you mean something like this: The Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore it's probable that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it is.

Or is your assessment based on an 'independent' evaluation of the Book of Abraham evidence? (I doubt this is it, as you said yourself that you haven't looked into the Book of Abraham issue much).

Or is it something else?

Furthermore I suspect there will be other tests sufficient to demonstrate problems if the church were indeed not true--tests much more convincing to me.

I doubt it. The church is not big on making falsifiable claims. Joseph Smith and BY were to a teeny-tiny extent, but none of the leaders since then have been.