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

[Shulem]

Sure, one can argue that everything that happens in a church that claims direct revelation from God is God driven. But I think that is unrealistic to expect. People are people and many times they’re going to do what they want to do, not necessarily what God wants them to do.

MG,

I tend to be a purest and am taken back to the original Church in which Joseph Smith organized and how the Church was run during his administration. I don’t think the D&C revelations were given with the idea that the Church would continue without Joseph Smith presiding up until the return of Jesus Christ and his second coming. The Church of the Latter-Day Saints was an end-times church set up in the very last days and Joseph Smith was the great prophet to usher in the final days to prepare for Christ’s imminent return.

I don’t think Joseph Smith had any idea that his Church in which he organized was going continue on for many generations after his death, generation after generation, to exceed 190 years as it is now. The revelations Smith gave show the Lord to be at the helm and Joseph Smith heralding a new dawn in which the people are to prepare for the great Millennium and that men standing at that time would witness such an event.

There are several examples in the Doctrine and Covenants that indicate the Lord was in charge over his Church through his prophet Joseph. The declarations in those revelations give every indication that there would be no error or mistakes coming from the Lord’s divine mouthpiece. The revelations given by Joseph Smith were to be received as if Jesus personally came down and gave them himself. That is the prescription given to the Church and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Reading the Doctrine and Covenants makes it crystal clear that Christ is coming (even at the door) and Joseph Smith was getting the Church ready for that door to open. The very thought that there would be generations to come with some 16 other Church Presidents to follow had to be the furthest thing from Joseph Smith’s mind. The theme of the D&C is anything but that!

35 And we know that these things are true and according to the revelations of John, neither adding to, nor diminishing from the prophecy of his book, the holy scriptures, or the revelations of God which shall come hereafter by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, the voice of God, or the ministering of angels.

45 The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.

. . . . by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred). . . .

58 And for this purpose I have commanded you to organize yourselves, even to print my words, the fulness of my scriptures, the revelations which I have given unto you, and which I shall, hereafter, from time to time give unto you—

59 For the purpose of building up my church and kingdom on the earth, and to prepare my people for the time when I shall dwell with them, which is nigh at hand.

[Shulem]

The problem is that many times religious adherents are like sheep and they’re willing to do whatever an ecclesiastical leader tells them to do. No questions asked.

Pardon me as I chuckle just a little with good natured intentions. A perfect example of this would be Moses leading the 12 tribes of Israel and presiding over all forms of government and ecclesiastical reins. His word was law, literally.

Another example was Brigham Young who maintained total control over his adherents that colonized the territory in which he claimed. The pioneer saints followed their leader absolutely.

Today, we have President Nelson and his predecessors who lead the Church like a shepherd having authority and power to issue decrees whether policy or commandments for all the sheep. The sheep must follow the shepherd where ever he leads them. No questions asked! But wait, the members can take their questions to the Lord in personal prayer to receive a confirmation but the decrees of the President of the Church are not likely to be overruled.

Taylor took hold of the same? The idea which you propose that God is necessarily running the show at every twist and turn doesn’t seem to be what we see throughout history, including the restoration. I think canonization of the Book of Abraham and the PofGP could move forward as an ecclesiastical decision. Similar to what we see today as policy decisions.

We can agree that the President of the Church is the only person that can authoritatively propose new scripture be added to the canon. Apostles can’t do that, not even the Quorum of the Twelve unless the First Presidency has been dissolved and the Church is led by the President of the Twelve to enact new commandments. Under normal circumstances the only power the Quorum of the Twelve have with regards to the introduction of additional canon is to vote either “Yes” or “No” at the councils preceding formal canonization or at the time of voting in General Conference. The President of the Church has the right and authority to stand up in General Conference and submit new canon to the entire Church. The President is the only man (D&C 132:7) on earth that has the sealing power and mouthpiece of God to preside over the entire Church.

[Shulem]

Terms such as midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis in the days of Joseph Smith would have been seen as inspired and revelatory.

Can you provide an example of this in the teachings of Joseph Smith? Would the Apocrypha be an example of this? Joseph Smith made a point that things that are true vs. things that are not true make all the difference in the world and that is why the Apocrypha was rejected as canon and Smith wasn’t about to take the time to retranslate it into an acceptable form.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

Smith concluded that the saints were welcome to read the Apocrypha through the Spirit and could be benefited by truth contained therein but the work would not be retranslated and canonized by the prophet. Thus, we see, the standard of truth is a necessary component in which something is deserving of being canonized. If it isn’t true then it can’t be canon!

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

[Shulem]

A common theme in your posts seems to be that the Lord is, or should be, 100% in charge/responsible for everything that goes on in the church.

When the resurrected Savior appeared before the Nephites he assumed 100% charge and responsibility for everything that transpired and was in absolute control over all affairs of the newly reorganized church. Decrees and statements in the Doctrine and Covenants tend to provide descriptions of this same sense of control from Jesus through Joseph Smith.

Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t believe that to be the case. This seems to be an issue that continually crops up time to time from the critics. Anything claiming to have God’s handprints on it needs to be pristinely perfect. I think that is an unreasonable assumption to make in a world of independent free thinking beings.

I allow the Doctrine and Covenants to speak for itself. That is the modern-day blueprint and instructions for how Mormonism was to continue under the direction of Joseph Smith. Strangely enough, these instructions seem to apply only to Joseph Smith who was preparing the saints for the imminent return of Christ who was knocking on the very door and about to open it.

I’m afraid that Mormonism today doesn’t remind me at all of the Mormonism that existed under Joseph Smith’s jurisdiction. I view Joseph Smith’s Church as an experiment that failed. The Church today is a remnant of that failure.

[Shulem]

At the end of the day what I’m proposing is that canonization of the Book of Abraham doesn’t dictate pristinely perfect and authoritative scripture. One way or the other, the weaknesses of men are going to be rather evident. Joseph’s midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis are naturally going to show up. Even so far as misrepresenting the literal interpretation of facsimilies and supplanting them with his own inspired composition with doctrinal content. That’s a difficult pill to swallow for strict 21st century literalists traveling back to the 19th century.

May I speak freely and be frank in my response?

I don’t find Smith’s interpretation of representing the god Osirirs as Abraham inspiring. Not at all. It’s not fair or right to take the god of another religion and supplant him for the purpose of creating ideas that are not true. I don’t agree that the women (goddesses) in Facsimile No. 3 may be spoken of as being men because this is 100% untrue. Smith’s representation of reading the text in that Facsimile as containing a king’s name is uninspired because it’s not true and that is not what the text contains. It disrespects the goddess Isis and subverts the nature of the Egyptian religion which is the true representation of the vignette. I find it reprehensible that Smith supplanted the god Anubis with that of a slave and called him by a fictious name “Olimlah” when the real name “Anubis” is in the writing above the black god. I’m mortified that Smith hacked the nose off of Anubis on Hedlock’s lead plate. I can hardly think about that without feeling a deep sense of grief.

MG, I find it difficult and a hard pill to swallow -- the untrue things Smith said of Facsimile No. 3. Everything he said about that vignette is false. His interpretation of the persons and the writings therein are 100% false. I find that to be most uninspiring and unworthy of consideration from anyone trying to find spiritual benefit by perverting sacred writings and images from another religion. It’s not right. It’s not true. The Church today is on the hook to de-canonize these things.

I’m enjoying the dialogue

Me too. I think we are beginning to understand each other more and more.

[MG 2.0]

Sure, one can argue that everything that happens in a church that claims direct revelation from God is God driven. But I think that is unrealistic to expect. People are people and many times they’re going to do what they want to do, not necessarily what God wants them to do.

MG,

I tend to be a purest and am taken back to the original Church in which Joseph Smith organized and how the Church was run during his administration. I don’t think the D&C revelations were given with the idea that the Church would continue without Joseph Smith presiding up until the return of Jesus Christ and his second coming. The Church of the Latter-Day Saints was an end-times church set up in the very last days and Joseph Smith was the great prophet to usher in the final days to prepare for Christ’s imminent return.

I don’t think Joseph Smith had any idea that his Church in which he organized was going continue on for many generations after his death, generation after generation, to exceed 190 years as it is now. The revelations Smith gave show the Lord to be at the helm and Joseph Smith heralding a new dawn in which the people are to prepare for the great Millennium and that men standing at that time would witness such an event.

I would agree with your assessment of Joseph here.

Personally, I don’t see myself as a purest. As I’ve alluded to, anything that involves independent thinking creatures with the ability to choose one thing or another is going to be by it’s very nature messy and have a predisposition towards discordance/corruption. Unless acted on otherwise through elevated consciousness. So when you say “ how the church was run”, I don’t know that we can KNOW how the church was run (except through the experience/perception of others) or what the future of the church is/was to be simply by observation, or perceived reality, in THAT ‘here and now’ relative to ours. Human development and change are dynamic, not static. This is why I have a difficult time looking at anything as being set in stone…a purest, so to speak…based solely on what words on a page may say at one time vs. another.

I don’t look at the church today as being completely dependent, attached at the hip, if you will…to the church at the time of Joseph Smith. Codependent, yes. But we are not them and they were not us.

There are several examples in the Doctrine and Covenants that indicate the Lord was in charge over his Church through his prophet Joseph. The declarations in those revelations give every indication that there would be no error or mistakes coming from the Lord’s divine mouthpiece. The revelations given by Joseph Smith were to be received as if Jesus personally came down and gave them himself. That is the prescription given to the Church and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Again, I am very uncomfortable in making any claim towards absoluteness. Except when it comes to general principles of morality and confirmed facts that seemingly have no alternative explanations. The “Lord being in charge” means something different to you than it does to me. You, as a purest, are also an idealist I would assume. There is a time and a place for that. But when it comes to trying to read the mind of God or His intentions, I think we can get into some muddy waters by adhering to strict idealization.

Reading the Doctrine and Covenants makes it crystal clear that Christ is coming (even at the door) and Joseph Smith was getting the Church ready for that door to open. The very thought that there would be generations to come with some 16 other Church Presidents to follow had to be the furthest thing from Joseph Smith’s mind. The theme of the D&C is anything but that!

Whatever may or may not have been crystal clear at one time and place, and to a given individual, doesn’t mean that this ‘reality’ IS what reality is. We all view the world through the eyes of our own experiences and from where we sit. Joseph did the same. I don’t think God creates ‘morgbots’ as some would have members of the church to be. We are free thinkers. I do believe Joseph and his associates were allowed that same privilege. As are leaders of the church today.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The President of the Church has the right and authority to stand up in General Conference and submit new canon to the entire Church. The President is the only man (D&C 132:7) on earth that has the sealing power and mouthpiece of God to preside over the entire Church.

And so, here we are living with the result of John Taylor’s decision to canonize the PofGP, including the Book of Abraham. The fact is, there are a number of important doctrines laid out in the Book of Abraham that are integral to the way members of the church view themselves relative to God and the cosmos. For this reason the Lord may have put a stamp of approval on John Taylor’s actions, assuming that He did. Did the Book of Abraham have to be pristinely perfect looking at it from all angles?

That’s a question folks, thinking on their own, are going to answer differently with varying degrees of open mindedness vs. a more restrictive view.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Terms such as midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis in the days of Joseph Smith would have been seen as inspired and revelatory.

Can you provide an example of this in the teachings of Joseph Smith?

The JST.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (the book).

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’m afraid that Mormonism today doesn’t remind me at all of the Mormonism that existed under Joseph Smith’s jurisdiction.

For the reasons I’ve outlined earlier, I wouldn’t expect it to. Except for the exemptions I mentioned.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

At the end of the day what I’m proposing is that canonization of the Book of Abraham doesn’t dictate pristinely perfect and authoritative scripture. One way or the other, the weaknesses of men are going to be rather evident. Joseph’s midrashic composition and scriptural exegesis are naturally going to show up. Even so far as misrepresenting the literal interpretation of facsimilies and supplanting them with his own inspired composition with doctrinal content. That’s a difficult pill to swallow for strict 21st century literalists traveling back to the 19th century.

May I speak freely and be frank in my response?

I don’t find Smith’s interpretation of representing the god Osirirs as Abraham inspiring. Not at all. It’s not fair or right to take the god of another religion and supplant him for the purpose of creating ideas that are not true. I don’t agree that the women (goddesses) in Facsimile No. 3 may be spoken of as being men because this is 100% untrue. Smith’s representation of reading the text in that Facsimile as containing a king’s name is uninspired because it’s not true and that is not what the text contains. It disrespects the goddess Isis and subverts the nature of the Egyptian religion which is the true representation of the vignette. I find it reprehensible that Smith supplanted the god Anubis with that of a slave and called him by a fictious name “Olimlah” when the real name “Anubis” is in the writing above the black god. I’m mortified that Smith hacked the nose off of Anubis on Hedlock’s lead plate. I can hardly think about that without feeling a deep sense of grief.

MG, I find it difficult and a hard pill to swallow -- the untrue things Smith said of Facsimile No. 3. Everything he said about that vignette is false. His interpretation of the persons and the writings therein are 100% false. I find that to be most uninspiring and unworthy of consideration from anyone trying to find spiritual benefit by perverting sacred writings and images from another religion. It’s not right. It’s not true. The Church today is on the hook to de-canonize these things.

I think that, again for reasons I’ve alluded to or outlined, I’m open to giving Joseph Smith the benefit of a doubt that he believed he was not doing any harm by serialization of the ‘life and times of Abraham’ in the T&S’s. Would he do the same thing today, knowing what we now know?

I doubt it.

Is the word of the Lord evident in what we now have as the Book of Abraham? I think an argument can be made, and has, that yes, we do.

Yes, it is unfortunate, to US, that Joseph’s midrash/exegesis also led to some of the incorrect interpretations that you have mentioned. In his time/space, maybe not so much.

Regards,
MG