DiscussMormonism.com

beefcalf wrote:

Presbyter wrote:Abraham 3 explains the metaphor

I suppose I was hoping for more specificity than a referral to twenty-eight verses of the Book of Abraham...

As to your metaphor reference: I propose the following...

Abrahamic astronomy was considered a literal revelation about astronomical topics in the decades following 1843... Only with the recent understanding of stellar evolution, of nucleosynthesis and of the various fusion reactions that power the stars has the literal interpretation of Abrahamic astronomy been shunted aside to make room for the metaphorical. Very much like the shift of considering the native peoples of America to be the descendants of Lehi to the admission that they are mostly not.

When one believes that these revelations are from God, and not from the mind of a mortal man, what a mortal prophet assumed about them a century ago makes little difference. I agree that Joseph Smith and other early Mormons may have believed that this referred to a literal cosmology. I also agree that assumptions like those are removed when a scientific discovery makes them extremely unlikely.

But our beliefs about astronomy carry no salvific value. I don't believe the Lord reveals things like Abraham 3 or the inspiration behind the interpretations of the hypocephalus in order to teach us astronomy, so our beliefs about whether or not it is literal or not do not matter much, IMHO.

Prebyter wrote:But our beliefs about astronomy carry no salvific value.

You and I are in agreement, then.

The problem that remains is that it seems the God of Joseph Smith is only as educated as Joseph Smith himself. Those concepts have no salvific value, but they are a salvific detractor. If God wants us to believe upon him, why would he have his prophets preach a juvenile cosmology and claim it came directly from the source of all light and knowledge?

beefcalf wrote:

Prebyter wrote:But our beliefs about astronomy carry no salvific value.

You and I are in agreement, then.

The problem that remains is that it seems the God of Joseph Smith is only as educated as Joseph Smith himself. Those concepts have no salvific value, but they are a salvific detractor. If God wants us to believe upon him, why would he have his prophets preach a juvenile cosmology and claim it came directly from the source of all light and knowledge?

I believe it is from the source of all light and knowledge. In the historical context, God revealed the cosmology to Abraham as a teaching tool to teach spiritual truths to the astronomically-minded Egyptians. Even if it's outside of our cultural understanding, we can still take advantage of it as a beautiful and powerful metaphor for the spiritual order of things.

We see then that God is not limited to Joseph Smith -- but by necessity a prophet cannot teach directly beyond his own comprehension.

We see then that God is not limited to Joseph Smith -- but by necessity a prophet cannot teach directly beyond his own comprehension.

I disagree. I will state that I think you have taken this stance out of an immediate necessity to defend Joseph Smith, but that it doesn't pass muster.

Adam, what are you doing?

Building an altar to offer sacrifices unto the Lord.

Why are you doing this?

I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

beefcalf wrote:

We see then that God is not limited to Joseph Smith -- but by necessity a prophet cannot teach directly beyond his own comprehension.

I disagree. I will state that I think you have taken this stance out of an immediate necessity to defend Joseph Smith, but that it doesn't pass muster.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I look forward to your demonstrating how it "doesn't pass muster."

Presbyter,

Thanks for your willingness to engage...

I'm on my iPad and, as much as I like it, posting while lying in bed kinda sux... I'll pick this up again tomorrow, k? With an answer for you :-)

C u then.

beefcalf wrote:

Presbyter wrote:[ quote="Darth J"]bcspace and Simon Belmont:
Do you agree that the sun our planet orbits receives its light from another star that is superior to it?[ /quote]
I don't. But I think the cosmological explanations in Abraham and of the Egyptian vignettes have extraordinary significance and reveal profound spiritual truths when related and understood correctly.

Presbyter: Please permit me to voice my skepticism. I do not think there are any significant or profound truths to be found in Abrahamic astronomy or in the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham. I am, however, interested to hear what they contain that you find to be significant and profound.

Please, beefcalf, read Presbyter carefully!

It is not "significant", it is "extraordinary significant".
It is not about "profound truth", it is about "profound spiritual truth".

In another - later - comment Presbyter wrote:beautiful and powerful metaphor for the spiritual order of things

The magic keyword is spiritual.
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See synonyms at immaterial.
Understood correctly!

There is a hungarian saying/proverb:
"Nesze semmi, fogd meg jól." = Here is nothing, hold it tight.

ludwigm wrote:There is a hungarian saying/proverb:
"Nesze semmi, fogd meg jól." = Here is nothing, hold it tight.

Snide comment noted. Good for you.

Presbyter wrote:We see then that God is not limited to Joseph Smith -- but by necessity a prophet cannot teach directly beyond his own comprehension.

beefcalf wrote:I disagree. I will state that I think you have taken this stance out of an immediate necessity to defend Joseph Smith, but that it doesn't pass muster.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I look forward to your demonstrating how it "doesn't pass muster."

I believe it doesn't pass muster because of the paraphrased interchange I then quoted. God told Adam to do this strange thing, a thing that Adam did not understand. Animal sacrifice.

What was it for? Why was he doing it? Adam didn't know. He didn't understand. He was just doing as he was told, with Eve watching and, presumably, also learning what God required of Adam.

That is why I think it is difficult to defend the statement that a 'prophet cannot teach directly beyond his own comprehension'.

I am curious, however, if you are referencing another source. Demanding CFR seems a bit confrontational, but if you have some backing on that, I would be interested in seeing it.

beefcalf wrote:I believe it doesn't pass muster because of the paraphrased interchange I then quoted. God told Adam to do this strange thing, a thing that Adam did not understand. Animal sacrifice.

What was it for? Why was he doing it? Adam didn't know. He didn't understand. He was just doing as he was told, with Eve watching and, presumably, also learning what God required of Adam.

That is why I think it is difficult to defend the statement that a 'prophet cannot teach directly beyond his own comprehension'.

I am curious, however, if you are referencing another source. Demanding CFR seems a bit confrontational, but if you have some backing on that, I would be interested in seeing it.

Sorry if I'm a bit slow -- I feel that way much more now than I did when I was younger -- but how does the verses about Adam sacrificing affect my statements? Are you saying that Adam, a prophet, did something he didn't fully comprehend?

If so, I agree with that -- I think Joseph Smith produced the book of Abraham which he didn't fully comprehend (or maybe he did but just didn't share). But on second thought I think Adam actually did comprehend sacrifice, even if he didn't comprehend the purpose behind it -- just as Joseph Smith actually did comprehend the literal text of the book of Abraham, even if he didn't comprehend the purpose behind it.

And I have no immediate references to share to back me up -- just my own evolving understanding of the Gospel plan.