Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

[Shulem]

MG,

I trust you remember Oliver Cowdery giving a lengthy description and discussing the matter of the papyrus in the LATTER DAY SAINTS’ MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE periodical of the Church. The saints recently acquired the papyrus and mummies and elder Cowdery was quite informative in telling the members about these discoveries. Much anticipation and excitement existed among the saints as they awaited the translation of the Book of Abraham & Joseph.

But on that note, let it be made perfectly clear that these works to come forth would become additional scripture for the Church. I think Oliver Cowerdy’s concluding statement in his informative article makes this crystal clear and let’s do remind ourselves that he was Joseph Smith’s right-hand man. Cowdery was in effect Smith’s mouthpiece and spoke to the entire Church much like Aaron might have for Moses. When Cowdery made this statement he was the Assistant President of the Church and was recognized as representing the prophet’s motives and intentions. I think we can agree that nobody understood Smith’s intentions regarding the papyrus better than Oliver Cowdery.

Though the Mummies themselves are a curiosity, and an astonishment, well calculated to arouse the mind to a reflection of past ages, when men strove, as at this day, to immortalize their names, though in another manner, yet I do not consider them of much value compared with those records which were deposited with them.

If Providence permits, I will, ere long, write you again upon the propriety of looking for additions to our present scriptures, according to their own literal reading.

Believe' me to be, sir, sincerely and truly, your brother in the bonds of the new and everlasting covenant.

OLIVER COWDERY.

[Shulem]

And up to this point we don’t have any first person testimony from Joseph Smith that the Book of Abraham was destined to be scripture like unto the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, Joseph had much to say about the scriptural authority of the Book of Mormon.

MG,

A reputable eyewitness account of the papyrus and a personal interview of a journalist interviewing Joseph Smith provides the perfect answer in showing that Joseph Smith did consider his translations of the papyrus of the Book of Abraham to be scripture. This testimony simply can’t be refuted because it’s Smith’s own words and they were never challenged or detracted. This account was published in no less than three newspapers under the title of “A GLANCE AT THE Mormons”; let me show you:

1) Quincy Whig. By S. M. Bartlett.] Quincy, Illinois, Sat., Oct. 17, 1840. [Vol. 3 - No. 25
2) Huran Reflector. Vol. XI. Norwalk, Ohio, Tuesday, December 8, 1840. No. 46.
3) Alexandria Gazette. Vol. XL. Alexandria, Va., Saturday, July 11, 1840. No. 155.

He [Joseph Smith] walked to a secretary on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted.

‘These ancient records,’ said he, ‘throw great light upon the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has hitherto been too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There,’ said he, pointing to a particular character, ‘that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.’

It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect in this place.

‘Yes’, replied the prophet, ‘and the translation hung up with them’.

Here we learn that this sacred record is an autograph of the ancient Patriarch Abraham and is on par with the Bible which reveals Christianity to the world. Notice that the reporter is agreeable that the papyrus be hung up on the walls of the Nauvoo temple which was under construction at the time. Then, notice Smith’s reply which absolutely sets in stone that the Book of Abraham translation is scripture, the divine word of God revealed to him when he says, “and the translation hung up with them”.

The translation revealing the Book of Abraham being hung up on the walls of the Nauvoo temple can only mean that it is scripture in every sense of the word, canon. We learn later in the translation of Facsimile No. 2, Fig. 8., “Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.” That my friend, is canon.

Do you agree with this assessment, MG? Does this not make the case clear that Joseph Smith considered his translation of the Book of Abraham to be new scripture revealed to the Church through his divine gift of translation? I think this makes the case in the affirmative and hope that we can find an accord in seeing eye to eye in this matter.

Shulem

[Shulem]

Since you're playing my song ...

I thought you would find this statement interesting; made by apostle John Taylor in the great Tabernacle of Salt Lake with reference to how man today compares scientifically with Abraham and his great grandson, Joseph. John Taylor canonized the Book of Abraham 20 years after giving these remarks about how much more knowledgeable Abraham was than scientists of modern times with regard to astronomy. Needless to say that modern science does not apply or use any of teachings of astronomy contained in the Book of Abraham or more especially the Explanations of Facsimile No. 2.

How much better is the world now, in any point of view, than in former days? What blessings have the great men of former ages handed down to posterity? Were they all collected, they would appear in little room. It is true there has been some little knowledge of chemistry and astronomy developed. And I question very much whether the people now know more about astronomy than Abraham and Joseph of old did, after all their problems and calculations, and all the intelligence of the schools in relation to this branch of science.

Wow. Just wow. John Taylor was very wrong to say that.

[MG 2.0]

…Joseph Smith considered his translation of the Book of Abraham to be new scripture revealed to the Church through his divine gift of translation? I think this makes the case in the affirmative and hope that we can find an accord in seeing eye to eye in this matter.

Shulem

Up to a point, yes. I do think that the PofGP, including the Book of Abraham is scripture on par with the JST of the Bible. Textual interpretation and study efforts made by the prophet. Was there inspiration involved? I’m totally open to that with both of these works I just mentioned. 100% inspiration? Possibly not. And probably not, as the evidence seems to show. That isn’t the nature of midrashic writing and/or scriptural exegesis. So yes, they are inspired and an exegesis/commentary connected to material in Joseph’s milieu.

John Taylor then brought it to canonization after having published it many years earlier in the Times and Seasons.

Associates of Joseph Smith saw the Bible translation work along with the PofGP/Book of Abraham as being inspired…scripture, so to speak. But again, there isn’t any convincing evidence that Joseph himself saw the Book of Abraham as being equal to the Book of Mormon. Or of equal importance. And as I said earlier, Joseph was apparently not interested in publishing it as a companion scripture. There was no rush, no effort, to either canonize or publish these writings as scripture.

Even though, yes, others around Joseph may have believed these projects that Joseph was involved with to be authoritative scripture. John Taylor did for sure. But Brigham Young, not so much apparently.

And then there was a thirty year delay…

By the way, wouldn’t midrashic style writing and/or commentary and scriptural exegesis look and feel a LOT like revelatory translation to those around Joseph?

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

MG
But again, there isn’t any convincing evidence that Joseph himself saw the Book of Abraham as being equal to the Book of Mormon.

So? There isn't any evidence that Joseph himself saw the Bible as being equal to the Book of Mormon either. Does that make the Bible just midrash and not scripture at all in his mind? Remembver it took 31/2 - 4 centuries for the Bible to become canonical MG... My goodness you are tenaciously (and incorrectly) hanging on to something that is irrelevant. It's interesting, but I am glad my outlook has the predominant evidence on its side. I'm happy to go with that.
Why the stringent criteria that everything has to all be equal in order to be valid scripture?! There is no evidence Joseph Smith ever thought your way either. I'm amazed you cannot see that.

[MG 2.0]

There isn't any evidence that Joseph himself saw the Bible as being equal to the Book of Mormon either. Does that make the Bible just midrash and not scripture at all in his mind?/quote]

I think the evidence shows Joseph placed a lot of stock in the Bible. Otherwise, why spend so MUCH time doing scriptural exegesis in response to the Old and New Testament text? And yet the church uses the KJV as the authoritative text except for occasionally referring to the JST. I think Joseph saw inspiration in the Bible, otherwise why would he have emphasized the importance of of James 1:5 in his own search for truth?

Remember it took 31/2 - 4 centuries for the Bible to become canonical MG...

I think you and I both know this is a false equivalency.

My goodness you are tenaciously (and incorrectly) hanging on to something that is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Not at all.

It's interesting, but I am glad my outlook has the predominant evidence on its side.

What your view DOES show is that there are potentially some questionable issues connected with there being 100% accuracy in Joseph’s interpretive exegesis and midrashic composition as he worked through the JST and the PofGP/Book of Abraham.

I'm happy to go with that.

And that’s OK.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

MG
What your view DOES show is that there are potentially some questionable issues connected with there being 100% accuracy in Joseph’s interpretive exegesis and midrashic composition as he worked through the JST and the PofGP/Book of Abraham.

This is true with absolutely everything he ever did... as it has been since the inception of religion... thanks for making the point.

[MG 2.0]

MG
What your view DOES show is that there are potentially some questionable issues connected with there being 100% accuracy in Joseph’s interpretive exegesis and midrashic composition as he worked through the JST and the PofGP/Book of Abraham.

This is true with absolutely everything he ever did... as it has been since the inception of religion... thanks for making the point.

I think that’s to be expected. Perfection is not supplied in the box. Assembly is required.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Up to a point, yes. I do think that the PofGP, including the Book of Abraham is scripture on par with the JST of the Bible. Textual interpretation and study efforts made by the prophet.

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Smith’s interest in translating (interpreting) the Bible was no more or no less important to him as the translation (interpreting) of the papyrus. He loved to translate and present his work to all who would receive it. We can agree on that.

Was there inspiration involved?

What would Joseph Smith say?

[ ] I was inspired
[ ] I was not inspired

I’m totally open to that with both of these works I just mentioned. 100% inspiration? Possibly not. And probably not, as the evidence seems to show.

Well, we could ask Joseph Smith. Suppose he was here enjoying a discussion with us in this thread. Let’s do it just for fun:

Brother Joseph, please check the box that best reflects the measurement of your inspiration when you translated the Book of Abraham papyrus from Egyptian hieroglyphic into the English language:

[ ] 25%
[ ] 50%
[ ] 75%
[ ] 100%

That isn’t the nature of midrashic writing and/or scriptural exegesis. So yes, they are inspired and an exegesis/commentary connected to material in Joseph’s milieu.

I have no recollection of Joseph Smith discussing the differences between midrashic writings and canonical scriptures which he fully endorsed. I know he tossed out the Song of Solomon as not inspired and refused to accept the Apocrypha as canon. My understanding is that Smith regarded scripture as literal and genuine historical history and that included the ages of the patriarchs and their ages when they were ordained to the priesthood.

As you can see, MG, there is a lot that can be questioned.

[Shulem]

John Taylor then brought it to canonization after having published it many years earlier in the Times and Seasons.

Here’s the kicker, MG. Are your ready for this?

It makes no difference whether Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor is the one to canonize the Book of Abraham. Canon *IS* canon and is just as much canon regardless of which President of the Church canonizes it. Think about it. A book canonized by Joseph Smith is not any more scripture than that of the same book being canonized by John Taylor! It all goes back to the Person (GOD) who told him to canonize it: “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

In summary, the Book of Abraham is canon in the Church today via John Taylor just as much as it would have been canon via Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. It makes no difference! Canon is canon.

Amen.