He can't be serious: Joseph and the Book of Abraham

[_DarkHelmet]

There is no way that Joseph Smith could have written the book of abraham. It was beyond his potential as a writer. To understand the book of abraham and its origins, either one must look at its divine origins or find another author. But Joseph Smith did not write it.

What is amazing just how wonderful a 'fraud' he was, so wonderful that it is difficult to pin him down on anything that was written--BOM, Book of Abraham or the Book of Moses. Thus, we have these discussions over and over again---but you got to hand it to ol' Joe, he was certainly gifted if he wrote all the above, organized a religion, got 11 witnesses, convinced his wife of the Book of Mormon, had visions with witnesses (Oliver), built cities, ran for president, developed doctrine married 33 women and so forth. And he guy died at 38 years old!!!!!

The fraud theory smells fishy here.

Yep, because nobody has ever pulled off a fraud as huge as Mormonism before. [/sarcasm] Pulling off a religious fraud is actually relatively simple, even according to Mormon teachings. Mormonism is the one true church. That means all the other religions out there, from the beginning of time, that were not sanctioned by god with leaders who were ordained by those in authority, and given the keys to speak on god's behalf, all of these other religions were frauds, pious or otherwise. Therefore, you believe there have been literally thousands of pious fraudsters starting fraudulent churches. The critics here are simply adding one more church to that list of frauds.

[_why me]

There is no way that Joseph Smith could have written the book of abraham. It was beyond his potential as a writer. To understand the book of abraham and its origins, either one must look at its divine origins or find another author. But Joseph Smith did not write it.

What is amazing just how wonderful a 'fraud' he was, so wonderful that it is difficult to pin him down on anything that was written--BOM, Book of Abraham or the Book of Moses. Thus, we have these discussions over and over again---but you got to hand it to ol' Joe, he was certainly gifted if he wrote all the above, organized a religion, got 11 witnesses, convinced his wife of the Book of Mormon, had visions with witnesses (Oliver), built cities, ran for president, developed doctrine married 33 women and so forth. And he guy died at 38 years old!!!!!

The fraud theory smells fishy here.

Yep, because nobody has ever pulled off a fraud as huge as Mormonism before. [/sarcasm] Pulling off a religious fraud is actually relatively simple, even according to Mormon teachings. Mormonism is the one true church. That means all the other religions out there, from the beginning of time, that were not sanctioned by god with leaders who were ordained by those in authority, and given the keys to speak on god's behalf, all of these other religions were frauds, pious or otherwise. Therefore, you believe there have been literally thousands of pious fraudsters starting fraudulent churches. The critics here are simply adding one more church to that list of frauds.

I am claiming that there is no way that Joseph Smith could have written the book of abraham with pen in hand. There had to be a different way. And there are four choices:

1. The book of abraham is what it claims to be.

2. Joseph wrote it with pen in hand. (his writing style as exhibited in his letters tends to discount it)

3. Someone else wrote it and Joseph Smith took credit for it, ie, Sidney Rigdon etc.

4. Joseph wrote it with a steady stream of consciousness. This would need a scribe.

Which of the four seems most likely?

[_Trevor]

There is no way that Joseph Smith could have written the book of abraham. It was beyond his potential as a writer. To understand the book of abraham and its origins, either one must look at its divine origins or find another author. But Joseph Smith did not write it.

I respect the fact that you choose to understand the book as a miracle, but I also think that this too can prevent us from understanding what was going on as well as we might. To clarify my position, I maintain that both dismissing the Book of Abraham as fraud and also emphasizing the miraculous nature of the project potentially limit what one can learn about the process by which it came to be.

I have no problem with people thinking it is bunk or the word of God as written by the ancient prophet Abraham, so long as that does not detract from actually figuring out what in fact was going on in the translation practice. In a way, this is similar to atheist arguments against creationist views (once you say God did it, you explain nothing), except that here the religious aspect of the enterprise is not dismissed out of hand either.

[_CaliforniaKid]

whyme,

Your examples of spelling errors and you insistence that Joseph can't have written it with pen in hand are meaningless, because we know for a fact Joseph employed scribes. Nevertheless, he wrote the book in the sense of being its creator and composer.

-Chris

[_why me]

whyme,

Your examples of spelling errors and you insistence that Joseph can't have written it with pen in hand are meaningless, because we know for a fact Joseph employed scribes. Nevertheless, he wrote the book in the sense of being its creator and composer.

-Chris

Who are the witnesses to the Book of Abraham? Did he employ a scribe and translate it? Now Joseph was not very good at writing with a pen but he could have been good at writing from a steady stream of consciousness. I do have my doubts about this too since Joseph wrote as he spoke. But he couldn't spell cat correctly...

The Book of Abraham is not gibberish. It is quite a story. Also, if he were a fraudster, he would have been shocked at the Book of Mormon reception and all the theories about how it came about. I would find it hard to swallow that he would try again with a different book regardless of its length. It was a great risk.

[_why me]

I respect the fact that you choose to understand the book as a miracle, but I also think that this too can prevent us from understanding what was going on as well as we might. To clarify my position, I maintain that both dismissing the Book of Abraham as fraud and also emphasizing the miraculous nature of the project potentially limit what one can learn about the process by which it came to be.

I am just a simple person trying to understand it simply. The Book of Abraham academics tend to analyse too much. To understand if the book was fiction written by Joseph or what it claims to be, we have to look at it simply and not with complicated eyes. I don't see Joseph writing this book without help of someone more learned. He was not that gifted in his writing, nor was he that articulate with his letters in terms of grammar and spelling.

How could he write this book? And why would he write it? I see no value in him taking the risk to write it. If a fraudster, he must have comtemplated the risks. Also, when would he write it without being discovered? I only have simple practical questions.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Who are the witnesses to the Book of Abraham? Did he employ a scribe and translate it?

According to Warren Parrish, "I have sat by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of heaven."

-Chris

[_Kevin Graham]

Also, if he were a fraudster, he would have been shocked at the Book of Mormon reception and all the theories about how it came about. I would find it hard to swallow that he would try again with a different book regardless of its length. It was a great risk.

You must be joking. Two words for ya, "Kinderhood Plates."

Smith used whatever opportunity he could to translate crap, because it gave him opportunity to create new doctrines and he could say whatever he wanted because there was no one who could prove him wrong. Risk? What risk?

That is what makes the Book of Abraham such a tragedy for him and the Church. Of course he didn't think it was a "risk" because, again, who was going to prove him wrong? Thanks to modern Egyptology, open-minded people willing to see the light, can find out for themselves that Joseph Smith really couldn't translate ancient documents. The problem with most Mormons, is that they really aren't interested in knowing this.

One guy at MADB said it perfectly last night. He said he doesn't care what teh sources is for the Book of Abraham, he still believes in it. Pac,man also said no amount of evidence could sway him from his testimony based conclusion.

Who are the witnesses to the Book of Abraham? Did he employ a scribe and translate it?

Was this meant to be a serious question?

[_beastie]

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Michael Coe referred to Joseph Smith as a shaman of sorts.

In regards to the pious fraud versus knowing con debate, I don't think we can ever settle the question. Part of it has to do with the complexity of human nature, and how even the most vile among us can, at times, demonstrate altruism and generosity, and how even the most noble and altruistic among us can, at times, demonstrate cruelty and smallness of spirit. At times, it seems clear to me that Joseph Smith must have believed in his own mission - I concur with seth who speculated that, in fact, it could have been his very success that convinced him he'd really been called to something genuine. And certainly there is evidence of his generosity and compassion. OTOH, he was perverse in his sexual behavior, particularly in that he was so willing to use power he had obtained through religious persuasion to convince women to "marry" him - this was very cruel toward Emma and her children. And I've never been able to find a way to view anything positive in the way he was willing to tell incoming Saints that his swampland was the best land, best for their health. So these two things seem so base to me that my mind concludes knowing fraud - but yet I suppose human nature is such that we're able to fool ourselves about the morality of our own behavior to the point where even that doesn't demand a knowing fraud.

Yes, I think there can be no doubt he was willing to use props - but the real question is - why? Did he use props like a shaman, in order to help his followers believe in that which he "knew" God wanted them to believe in? Or was it to garner a following of gullible people he could later use to his own advantage?

I also still tend to think that there may be an element of mental instability, like bipolar, which one researcher claims has been present in his genetic lineage - and most likely claimed his son, David. If that is so, it throws everything out of kilter for obvious reasons, he he would most likely have believed all of his claims. In addition, people with bipolar, when gripped by mania, can behave in the most obnoxious, selfish, and even harmful manner imaginable. Of course, some have made the argument that such mental instability is probably common in religious genius.

[_CaliforniaKid]

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Michael Coe referred to Joseph Smith as a shaman of sorts.

I believe Dan Vogel does, too. Shamans are one of his examples of "pious fraud" at work.