Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[Guest]

...

[_Bazooka]

Did you read the Charlesworth quote? He is the world's authority, pay close attention.

Did you read what Joseph Smith stated? He is the Prophet who restored God's Church on earth in these Latter Days. He got the definitive explanation of the seven thousand years directly from God himself through revelation.
Why do you find the words of a mere mortal Charlesworth more credible than those of God (your God) spoken to us through the Prophet?

Bumping for Nelson

[_Themis]

I read the quote, but I fail to see what significance you are getting from it that pertains to this issue. perhaps you could elaborate.

Joseph Smith felt he was an heir to the Abrahamic tradition so he was authorized to write on his behalf.

I am unaware of Joseph claiming this in regards to the Book of Abraham. Do you have any evidence for this? I know he claimed to be able to translate from one language to another, and claims to have translated Abraham's words written on the papyri. This is the same claim we see with the Book of Mormon.

I see we have several pages of posts now, but I saw you mention wiki definition of Pseudepigraph. I don't see that it really is different from your quote of Charlesworth who I think is just cautioning us not to view many of these authors as being intentionally fraudulent. Again though, this is different from what Joseph is claiming to do.

[_Themis]

More elaboration from Bokovoy (I think I maxed out my quotations limit on his copyrighted material):

Thank you for posting the interesting question. Joseph Smith was incredibly mystically oriented. Like a shaman, Joseph was constantly trying to access the divine. In the process of attempting to decipher the Egyptian papyri, Joseph produced the Book of Abraham. It seems clear to me that the Prophet believed that he was reproducing the literal words of the biblical patriarch. Yet in reality, whatever Joseph believed he was doing, the evidence suggests that he created a pseudepigraphic text.

This perspective may no doubt bother some believers, but the more one delves into the Jewish and Christian scriptural tradition, the more one comes to recognize that the Book of Abraham actually reflects the general pattern for scriptural texts.

In ancient Israelite/Judean examples of pseudepigraphy, pseudonymous authors are used as a tool to elevate the status of a texts as revealed literature. And yet, the goal of connecting an author with a text is not simply to identify the text as a document coming from a sage, or even a prophet, but instead, as a text produced by one who communicated with God, and can therefore serve as a type of conduit for the disclosure of divine knowledge. Pseudonynomous authors (like Abraham in Joseph Smith’s work) therefore legitimize the scriptural authority of the text.

In these sense, the pseudonymous writer is not so much an author as he is a “tradent,” meaning “a person who delivers or hands over any property to another.” As I suggested, the ancient art of pseudepigrapha is not consistent with the modern notions of fraud or forgeries, and though an interesting historical question, the issue of whether or not Joseph understood that he was creating that sort of a text is not relevant to my personal belief that he tapped into a very inspiring way of understanding God, humanity, and the universe.

Scripture is “messy;” even the Book of Mormon title page allows for human error. I suspect that when it comes to the representation of the absolute truth regarding God, humanity, and the universe, none of what the world’s religions define as “scripture” conveys a perfect reflection of transcendent reality, but for me, the Book of Abraham works. It is an amazing text with fascinating parallels to ancient Semitic (and biblical) efforts to convey religious truth. It is one of my favorite scriptural texts.

Best,

–DB

These kind of arguments at the end of the day allow one to believe what ever they want, and as such I think they lack good reasons to accept them. Especially in light of contrary evidence.

Parallels are also a dangerous game I see both critics and apologists playing. I tend to be skeptical without proper controls to properly evaluate what significance they hold.

[Guest]

444

[_nc47]

Again though, this is different from what Joseph is claiming to do.

It really doesn't matter to me. He did most of the Book of Mormon by looking into a stone. Nostradamus was looking into a fish bowl (or something like that). Around Joseph time people use all sorts of objects to induce spiritual experiences.

Without a proper knowledge of the historical background of his day, it's easy for members to get cognitive dissonance over finding out things like his sticking his face in a hat.

[_Bazooka]

Without a proper knowledge of the historical background of his day, it's easy for members to get cognitive dissonance over finding out things like his sticking his face in a hat.

Actually it's not the lack of proper knowledge of the historical background of the day that causes members cognitive dissonance over Joseph translating by placing his face in a hat and reading words off a rock that he found whilst digging a well. It's that they've been told something completely different by the Church.

[_nc47]

Without a proper knowledge of the historical background of his day, it's easy for members to get cognitive dissonance over finding out things like his sticking his face in a hat.

Actually it's not the lack of proper knowledge of the historical background of the day that causes members cognitive dissonance over Joseph translating by placing his face in a hat and reading words off a rock that he found whilst digging a well. It's that they've been told something completely different by the Church.

That may be a cause but the cognitive dissonance can be prevented with a proper knowledge of the historical background.

Richard Bushman's faith crisis model.
1. Glass testimony, everything is pristine.
2 Goes on the internet and reads someone's blog, glass breaks.
3. Stays in church long enough to understand historical background behind church, stays.

[_Themis]

I can easily say the same thing about critics.

Somehow I doubt we will be seeing any examples. The argument is about dismissing what you don't like as Joseph's input, and what you do like as God's. This is a game that can be played with what ever you want to believe. You even ignore what Joseph is claiming about it. It's loses all meaning and reasons to accept them when it is so open to allowing one to believe anything they like. It's no different then what some do with Bigfoot, Atlantis, etc.

I agree with this completely. In order for a parallel to be meaningful it has to be unique or at least not so general it appears everywhere in the human experience. In order to establish a parallel for the Book of Mormon, for example, we also need to demonstrate how Joseph Smith could not have known. However, there are mystics in every culture, era, and religion that the rules don't apply in this instance.

When one investigates more they usually find Joseph indeed could have known for most examples I have seen. I am not sure what you mean by the rules not applying in this instance.

But more specifically, Joseph Smith's recovery of ancient elements has been widely recognized. As I mentioned before, John Brooke in his Cambridge Press book tried to connect Joseph Smith to hermeticism and Kaballah. Harold Bloom has said about Joseph Smith,

"I can only attribute to his genius or daemons his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."

I am not sure they think Joseph did anything supernatural, and you would need to be more specific in what you think Joseph could not have known. The more I read the more I saw Joseph as a great borrower of ideas.

Whether Joseph Smith had the unlikely access to ancient sources is up for debate. But for our current purposes in the Book of Abraham discussion, it doesn't really matter whether he acessed those sources directly. He was operating with an ancient mindset, so writing on behalf of Abraham is perfectly legitimate.

I am not sure what you mean by ancient mindset, but again you are ignoring what Joseph and others were claiming to do. He was claiming to translate Abraham's words written on the papyri into English. He was not claiming to be writing for Abraham. This is a big difference, and your belief is not really supported by what Joseph is claiming.

[_Themis]

Again though, this is different from what Joseph is claiming to do.

It really doesn't matter to me.

I am sure it doesn't, since that would undermine what you are trying to believe.

He did most of the Book of Mormon by looking into a stone. Nostradamus was looking into a fish bowl (or something like that). Around Joseph time people use all sorts of objects to induce spiritual experiences.

That doesn't change what he is claiming to do, which is to provide a translation of another language from supposed ancient records written on gold plates into English.

Without a proper knowledge of the historical background of his day, it's easy for members to get cognitive dissonance over finding out things like his sticking his face in a hat.

It comes across as fraudulent, but then it did back then to many in society. It probably wouldn't as much to certain parts of society back then, but that would also be true today. I imagine those who go to Psychics may not have as much of a problem with it. I thinking you probably don't believe in that stuff. If it worked so well why do so many not believe in them. It also doesn't help how Joseph got into the practice, and his treasure looking for hire. If you read up on it you may find their is an art form to it to help the more gullible to believe they have some supernatural gift.